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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world profile, so the safety bar is low. The description adds only that results are paginated; it says nothing about result ordering, relevance semantics, or empty-result behavior.

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 with zero filler; the core action comes first and the optional qualifiers and pagination follow in a natural order.

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 filtered search with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, this is essentially sufficient; only return-shape/ordering details are missing, and the absence of an output schema makes that a minor 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%, with per-parameter docs for query, category, storefrontSlug, page and limit, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same concepts (query, storefront/category scoping, pagination) without adding syntax or format detail 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('services') plus the two optional scoping dimensions and pagination. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_products and search_storefronts by the resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Optionally scoped to a storefront and category' implies when the scoping parameters are relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative in the description itself (the search_storefronts reference lives only in the schema). Usage is only inferable.

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