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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output fields and the cashback-eligible scope, but does not state that it is a read-only operation, nor address result limits, pagination, or error behavior. For an unannotated tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and output. No filler or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers the core purpose and return fields, but is incomplete in guiding the agent on when to choose this over siblings and in disclosing operational behavior. The schema covers parameter details, but external context such as read-only safety and pagination 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both query and limit, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics about match behavior (e.g., partial vs exact, case sensitivity). It does reiterate the query keyword concept, but that adds little 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 action ('Search for cashback-eligible stores') with a clear resource and input method ('by name or keyword'). It also lists the returned fields, which further distinguishes it from sibling get_stores_by_category. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives like get_stores_by_category for category-based searches, nor any prerequisites for cashback eligibility. The usage context is only implied by the action itself.

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