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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world scope. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond them: results are capped at 10 and only live stores are returned. However it says nothing about what happens when the cap is hit, whether/how to page past 10, or latency/rate limits — significant omissions for a search tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the result cap and liveness constraint, then the filters, then the sort order. Info-dense with no filler, though the parenthetical enumeration makes it slightly long.

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 an 8-parameter, 0-required search tool with no output schema and no annotations covering result behavior, the description should say more about what a returned store record contains and how to go beyond the 10-result cap. It is adequate for invocation but incomplete for correct expectation-setting.

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 88%, so the schema already documents seven of eight parameters in detail (including the app/pixel key vocabularies). The description only echoes the filter names (category, country, apps run or lack, pixels, theme) without adding syntax, combination, or default-value semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource (find live Shopify stores), enumerates the filter dimensions, the result cap, and the sort dimensions. An agent can tell it is a filtered search, but it never names or contrasts the siblings (lookup_store, technology_usage), so the differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter enumeration — you reach for this when you want a cohort of stores matching criteria. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-instead guidance relative to lookup_store (single store) or technology_usage (aggregate stats), which is the main gap.

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