sevennow_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the return content (current pricing tiers, live availability, sponsored-brand facet list) and explicitly states the empty-result behavior: a normal 200 with an empty items array, not an error. It doesn't cover pagination behavior or rate limits, but the key operational outcomes are handled.

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?

Four sentences, all purposeful and front-loaded: purpose, result contents, store_id source, and error semantics. The only mild redundancy is repeating store_id's origin already present in the schema. Overall tight and scannable.

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?

The description covers the essential selection and invocation cues for a simple 4-parameter search: what it returns, how to obtain store_id, and the empty-result contract. It lacks explicit pagination semantics for skip/limit and does not guide tool choice among sevennow siblings, but no output schema exists and annotations are absent, so the main expected behaviors are disclosed.

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%: q, skip, limit, and store_id each have descriptions. The description adds only marginal value, mostly restating store_id's provenance ('store_id comes from GET /7now/stores'), which the schema already states, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening phrase 'Search one 7NOW store's products' names a specific verb and resource, and the description clarifies it returns keyword search results with products and combo deals, pricing, availability, and facet lists. This distinguishes it from related siblings like sevennow_suggest or sevennow_popular by scope, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 its use case—keyword search within a single store—and explains that store_id comes from GET /7now/stores, giving a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as sevennow_suggest, sevennow_combos, or sevennow_catalog, nor any exclusions.

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