search_doubledash

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true), and the description adds real context beyond them: the placed-order-only constraint, a CLI version prerequisite, and the query-coupling contract with add_doubledash_item. It stops short of describing result shape or how many stores come back, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, precondition, exclusion, follow-up, dependency. The usage condition is front-loaded ahead of the version note, which is the least critical detail.

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 four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers when to call, the ordering constraint, and the handoff to the next tool. The remaining gap is return-value expectations — what a store result contains and how to present matches — which the agent must infer.

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, but the description adds a genuine cross-tool semantic rule the schema cannot express: the query string must be reused verbatim in add_doubledash_item. That materially changes how the query parameter should be constructed.

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 ('Search') plus a precisely scoped resource: items across stores that can join a placed order's delivery. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_doubledash_options and names the downstream add_doubledash_item, so an agent can place it without opening another 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?

Gives the exact triggering condition ('when the suggested items in list_doubledash_options don't cover what the user wants'), an explicit exclusion ('Placed orders only'), and the follow-up workflow ('Pass the SAME query to add_doubledash_item'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all stated.

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