Find Alza showrooms

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses a critical behavioral caveat: 'types accepts alzabox, but AlzaBox locker discovery is not yet implemented — only branch results are returned.' This informs the agent that passing 'alzabox' will silently return nothing, which is essential for correct invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then the use case, then the critical caveat and alternative, ending with a concrete example. Every sentence serves a distinct function, and the length is appropriate for a tool with this many caveats.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four parameters, complex type behavior, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, use case, inactive type, alternative sibling, and a usage example. The output schema and annotations fill the remaining details, so no critical context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% parameter documentation, including semantics, defaults, and constraints, so the description's added semantic value is limited. The example call `find_pickup_points({postal_code: '110 00', radius_km: 10})` reinforces usage but doesn't materially exceed the schema's coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find Alza brick-and-mortar showrooms (AlzaShop) near a Czech/Slovak postal code.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling pickup-point tools by explicitly stating it returns showrooms, not AlzaBoxes, and names the relevant alternative for lockers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user wants to browse in person, get on-site advice, or find where an AlzaShop branch is.' It also provides a clear exclusion and alternative: 'For AlzaBox parcel shops in a checkout flow use web_pickup_places instead.'

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.