find_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses sorting and return fields, but doesn't explicitly state this is a read-only search, mention result limits, or cover error cases. More explicit non-destructive language would improve it.

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 concise—two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then a structured list of return fields. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, sorting, and return fields. It also links to set_store. Minor gaps like pagination limits don't significantly impact completeness for this low-complexity 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?

The only parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema (postal code or city) and the description repeats that. No additional parameter-specific meaning is added beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema 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 clearly states the tool searches E.Leclerc drives by postal code or city, sorted by distance. It also lists exact return fields, including the identifier to pass to set_store, distinguishing it from siblings like search_product or cart tools.

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 implies a workflow by noting the identifier should be passed to set_store, suggesting use before store selection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full guidelines.

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