store_circular

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains that zip_code is optional if GROCERY_ZIP is set and that limit has a default, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, potential errors, or what happens if the store is not found. These are relatively minor for a read-only 'show' tool, but the description is not exhaustive.

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 two sentences plus a compact Args block. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence provides useful information. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's function and all parameter semantics. It does not discuss error cases, but that is not strictly necessary when an output schema exists. It could be improved by mentioning the relationship to sibling tools, but that is not critical.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully documents all three parameters: store with examples, zip_code with format and conditional need, and limit with default. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, though it could include more detail on accepted formats or edge cases.

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's function: showing everything in one store's current weekly ad. It specifies the resource (store's weekly ad) and the scope (one store), which differentiates it from sibling tools like search_deals that likely search across stores. It could be more explicit about how it relates to siblings, but the purpose is clear and specific.

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 the use case—when you want a full weekly ad for a specific store. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it. There is no explicit exclusion or comparison to sibling tools like search_deals or price_check.

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