store_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does make the read-only lookup nature inferable and specifies the returned data fields, but it does not explicitly state that no state is modified or describe what happens for invalid or unknown store codes.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately gives relevant output details. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the low complexity of this tool — one required string parameter and no output schema — the description covers the input key, gives an example, and names the expected output fields. It is adequate, though it leaves error behavior and alternative-tool routing implicit.

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 only a property name and type for store_code, with 0% description coverage. The tool description compensates by identifying the store code as the lookup key and providing an example format ('M735'), which adds practical meaning for the agent.

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 a store-details lookup by store code and enumerates the returned fields: address, opening hours, and metro. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_stores or current_store.

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 phrase 'по коду' implies that the tool should be used when the caller already has a store code, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives such as find_stores for cases where the code is unknown.

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