Physical branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — shops stock only part of the catalog — but says nothing about result count, pagination, or freshness of the listing. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a modest value-add.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact usage block; the warning about partial stock is the only 'extra' and it earns its place by preventing a bad user outcome. No filler or restated title.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not document return values. It covers what the tool is, when to pick it, and the one operational caveat, which is everything an agent needs for a no-arg listing call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, list-everything call and introduces no phantom inputs, but there is no parameter semantics to enrich.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List MasterKala's physical shops in Tehran') and even enumerates the returned fields (address, phone, map location). It is immediately separable from siblings like mk_brands or mk_categories, which are also enumerations but of different resources.

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?

Explicitly gives the selecting condition ('Use when the user wants to buy in person') and names the related sibling field (mk_product's `branches`) that covers the per-product variant of the question. It also supplies the follow-up behavior (call the shop before going) that an agent would otherwise have to invent.

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