list_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the query parameter filters by name/address, but it does not state that the tool returns a list of stores, whether authentication is required, or any limitations. The disclosure is too thin for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 very compact, front-loads the resource identity, and includes only relevant information about the parameter. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no verbose padding.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the basic invocation is covered. However, the absence of usage guidance and any mention of authentication or alternative tool routing leaves the description incomplete for confident selection in a broader toolset.

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 provides no descriptions for the 'query' parameter (0% coverage), so the description meaningfully compensates by explaining that query filters by name/address. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema definition, though it lacks examples or details about null handling.

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 identifies the resource (ГЛОБУС hypermarkets) and the query filtering behavior, making the tool's basic purpose clear. It does not contain an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the tool name 'list_stores' plus the resource phrase conveys the intent. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'list_pickup_points' by explicitly naming hypermarkets.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pickup_points, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only behavioral clue is the query filter, but no context is given about typical use cases or selection criteria.

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