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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: a result cap of 20 stores and the shape of each result (website and main categories), which tells the agent what to expect and when results may be truncated.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The identification of the resource and domain comes first, then the query modes, empty-input behavior, and return shape — front-loaded in exactly the order an agent needs.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the domain, the search modes, the empty-query fallback, the result cap, and the returned fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the empty-string behavior and examples in Portuguese. The description's examples ("jeans", "suplementos") largely echo the schema's own, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find online stores") plus the domain restriction (sell on DMCommerce, Brazil) and the two query modes (by name or by product type). An agent can immediately distinguish it from get_product, search_products, and quote_shipping, which all operate on different resources.

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?

"Leave query empty to list every store" gives explicit conditional usage, and the query examples clarify the two intended search modes. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over search_products or what to do when a store lookup returns nothing, so the alternative-routing guidance is incomplete.

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