find_stores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the core behavior: stores of the current region with query matching as a substring of an address/city. It does not disclose pagination behavior, request/response shape, or whether a null query returns all stores, leaving material gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the scope and clarifies the key parameter with examples. No redundant wording; every part earns its place.

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?

The definition is minimally sufficient for a simple filtered store lookup: scope and query semantics are clear. But with no output schema and no annotations, the missing pagination and response-shape information leave the description adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for the query parameter with examples, but page and limit are left to their names/defaults and are not described, making the compensation partial.

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 identifies the tool as returning stores in the current region and explains that query filters by part of an address or city, with examples. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool, i.e., to look up stores in the current region, optionally filtered by a query string, and gives concrete query syntax/examples. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools, such as store_details, list_regions, or search_products, would be preferable.

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