search_tools

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it caps results at 20, describes source links and last checked dates, and clarifies that any-store tools are included for a platform without implying native integration.

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 four tight sentences with no wasted language. Purpose, filter logic, return behavior, and a caveat about any-store tools are all front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description gives solid coverage of search dimensions, result count, return fields, and a semantic caveat. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination behavior beyond the 20-result cap or by explicitly routing agents from sibling tools, but the core context is present.

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. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating that filters combine with AND and by tying the return limit to 20 concise matches, which is not fully conveyed by the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find published ecommerce tools by text, task, platform, pricing, and delivery kind. It is clearly a search tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_tool, find_alternatives, or compare_tools.

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 through its filter facets and notes that filters combine with AND, which helps an agent understand search behavior. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_tool for exact lookup or find_alternatives for substitution discovery.

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