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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to shops with live offers and include a per-shop offer count, and the default ordering is most-offers-first.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the resource definition and scope come first, then the default-ordering behavior. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return shape (shops with offer counts), and annotations cover the safety profile. It is slightly thin on pagination/limit behavior, but that is addressed in the schema, so an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema (including the default limit of 20 and the category-slug reference to list_categories). The description adds only the combined name/category semantics and default sort, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (search) and resource (shops/merchants) plus the scoping constraint that only shops with live coupons/offers are returned. It also names the filter dimensions (name and/or category) and the payload (live offer counts), which cleanly separates it from the single-shop lookup get_shop.

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 description implies when it is useful (finding shops by name/category) and explains the no-filter default ordering, but it never names get_shop as the alternative for a known shop or states exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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