List grocery stores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and mutability are covered. The description adds useful result-content context (fee, minimum order, rating) but says nothing about pagination behaviour despite a page parameter, leaving the behavioural picture only partially filled in beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the workflow guidance second. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations, and every clause carries information.

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 an output schema present, return-value details need not be restated, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to establish purpose, usage, and sequencing — which it does. The one omission is pagination behaviour for the page parameter, a minor gap for a listing tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all four parameters carry descriptions with ranges and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'cheapest delivery or best rated' indirectly mirrors two of the three sort enum values, but the description never names the sort or page parameters or adds format/syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List SnappMarket stores delivering to the point') and even enumerates the returned attributes (delivery fee, minimum order, rating), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. Sibling differentiation is partial: it names the follow-on tool market_store_products but does not distinguish itself from look-alikes such as market_store_info, market_find_cheapest, or market_search.

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?

'Use to pick a store (cheapest delivery or best rated) before browsing it with market_store_products' gives a clear use context and the logical next step in the workflow. It does not state when NOT to use it or how it differs from the other market_* discovery tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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