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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses scoping to the user's marketplace region, a limit of up to 20 results, the output format ('Name (ID)'), and the instruction to pass exact strings into search_offers. This exceeds what most descriptions provide and leaves no ambiguity about 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?

The description is efficient and front-loaded. It opens with the purpose, immediately gives usage constraints, then explains the output and how to consume it. Every sentence serves a distinct informational need; no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: correct call conditions, the parameter meaning, result count and format, and downstream usage in search_offers. The presence of an output schema handles return structure, so the description's additional context completes the picture.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must document the parameter. It explains 'query' as 'Shop name or partial name the user mentioned,' which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type/title. It could be slightly richer (e.g., note case sensitivity or fuzzy matching), but the explanation is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('wine RETAILERS / STORES by name'), with concrete examples. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying producers/châteaux/domaines/wineries/brands go to search_offers, so an agent cannot confuse which tool handles store names.

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?

Provides explicit call conditions: 'Call this ONLY when the user explicitly names a retail store.' It also states when NOT to call it and routes the alternative case to search_offers. This is a model of clear when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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