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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context ('live availability', 'sponsored-brand facet list'), but discloses nothing about rate limits, auth needs, or how it differs behaviorally from other reads; with annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a baseline 3.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key scope (one store) is front-loaded. It loses a point only because it is a noun fragment rather than a clean verb-led statement and omits any usage cue.

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 a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering the read-only/open-world profile, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly. The only real gap is the absence of sibling differentiation, which is minor for a straightforward store-scoped search.

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 four parameters (q, skip, limit, store_id) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the limit range. The description adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description conveys a keyword search scoped to a single 7NOW store and specifies what is returned (products, combo deals, pricing, availability, sponsored facets). However, it is phrased as a noun-like summary of results rather than a clear action, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like sevennow_suggest or sevennow_catalog.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'keyword search' tells an agent the input is a query and store_id is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternative tools such as sevennow_suggest for autocomplete or sevennow_product for direct lookups.

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