search_stores

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and return fields (traffic, products, platform) but lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., how to navigate pages, default page, max page), rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences that are front-loaded and concise. The first sentence states the main action and database, the second sentence lists filters and output. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary words.

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?

Given 7 optional parameters, no required param, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and return type but lacks details on pagination mechanics (e.g., default per_page, page limits) and output structure. It is minimally complete but could be improved for a search tool with multiple filters.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds examples for keyword and platform (e.g., 'pet supplies', 'shopify'), providing minor value beyond the schema. However, it does not cover all parameters or provide deeper semantic meaning, so it remains at a 3.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Cart database of e-commerce stores with specific filters, and mentions returns a paginated list of store summaries with traffic metrics, product counts, and platform info. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_store (single store) or search_products (products).

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 usage by listing filters and return type, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_store for a single store, search_products for products). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context of sibling tools exists but is not referenced in the description.

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