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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior and returned fields, but omits any side-effect/safety statement, result limits or pagination behavior, or note that it is read-only. Since search implies non-mutating, this is a moderate gap rather than a contradiction.

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 redundant phrases, and the action is front-loaded. Every clause adds information: scope, search key, and returned fields.

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 simple search with one required parameter, the description explains the function and return content, though it omits guidance about limit behavior and sibling differentiation. With no output schema, the return-field list is valuable, but the lack of any usage or behavioral context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond 'name or keyword', which mirrors the schema. The limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema documents it adequately despite an internal inconsistency (max 50 in text vs large schema maximum).

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 the specific verb 'search' with resource 'cashback-eligible stores' and the input type 'name or keyword'. The return fields (name, cashback rate, category) further clarify the function, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stores_by_category or get_store_details.

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 phrase 'by name or keyword' implies the tool is for text-based search, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over siblings like get_stores_by_category. No exclusions or alternative-routing instructions are given, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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