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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are scoped to exactly one store and include pricing plus live availability, signalling freshness/data content. It stops short of describing pagination or result-shape behavior, so not a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the disambiguation sentence following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Scope (one store), required keyword search, and sibling routing are all present. Only minor gaps remain, such as noting the default/max limits are pagination-only.

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% and both required params (store_id, q) plus skip/limit are documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the store scoping implicitly, adding no syntax, format, or bounds beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Search one 7NOW store for products and combo deals with pricing and live availability.' It explicitly limits scope to a single store and names the sibling tools it is not (sevennow_suggest, sevennow_product, sevennow_catalog), so an agent can distinguish it from the many sevennow_* siblings without opening a schema.

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 second sentence names three concrete alternatives and the condition that selects each: typeahead → sevennow_suggest, single item → sevennow_product, browsing → sevennow_catalog. Routing between sibling tools is left to nothing but inference.

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