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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful context about public listings and exclusion of merchant personal data. However, it incorrectly states a 'plan' filter that does not exist in the schema, misleading about capabilities. This reduces transparency despite good intent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and object, and each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, the filters, and the return data/scope. 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?

The description covers return fields, scope, and privacy constraints, which is good given no output schema. However, it inaccurately mentions a 'plan' filter, and it does not explicitly note pagination via offset or defaults (though the schema covers these). The inaccuracy creates a completeness gap.

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% for all parameters, so the schema already explains limit, query, offset, and wilaya. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond that and introduces a non-existent 'plan' parameter, which creates confusion rather than clarifying parameter meaning.

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 specifies the action (search), the resource (public Mystoq store directory), and the scope (Algerian online shops). It differentiates from siblings like get_store by emphasizing search and filtering, and lists return fields, making the purpose explicit and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use: when searching/filtering stores. It provides context about public vs. private data and filters, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as 'use get_store for a single known store.' This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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