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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: results are ranked by AI-assistant mention frequency rather than relevance or alphabetically, which changes how an agent should interpret the ordering. It does not mention tie-breaking or paging beyond the limit, keeping it at 4.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the ranking rule, then the filter options. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 four-optional-parameter read-only search with no output schema, this covers what the agent needs: what is returned, how it is ordered, and how to obtain valid category slugs. Only the returned field set and tie-break behavior are left implicit, which is minor for this tool type.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining that 'category' is a slug (with a pointer to list_store_categories for the valid set) and that 'query' matches a word in the name or domain. It restates the platform filter without adding anything the enum does not already convey.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find online stores in 7BE's catalog') and immediately defines the ranking rule — ordering by how often ChatGPT, Gemini and Google AI Mode named the store in shopper queries. That ranking semantics makes it clearly distinct from a per-store metric tool like store_ai_visibility and from the category enumerator it references.

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?

It states the three usable filter axes (category slug, name/domain word, platform) and explicitly routes the agent to list_store_categories to obtain valid slugs, which is actionable context. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over sibling tools such as store_ai_visibility, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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