search_stores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (store names, cities, ratings, toco.id links), which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a search operation this is likely read-only, but that is not stated. The description adds some behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 concise, two sentences with the purpose front-loaded. It efficiently states what the tool does and what it returns. However, the inclusion of the nonexistent 'store tier' filter detracts from precision, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the return fields adequately. It does not mention pagination (though schema has page/limit) or any ordering constraints. The misleading 'store tier' filter also reduces completeness. For a simple search tool it is mostly sufficient, but the inaccuracy and missing behavioral notes prevent a higher score.

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. However, the description mentions a 'store tier' filter that does not exist in the schema (only cities and officialOnly are available). This is misleading and could cause an agent to look for a parameter that is not present. The description otherwise adds little beyond the schema, and the inaccuracy lowers the score.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'sellers on Toco', and specifies the search basis (name or description). It also lists filters (city, official-store status, store tier) and return fields (store names, cities, ratings, toco.id links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_products (which searches products) and get_store_info (which retrieves a specific store's details).

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 makes it obvious this tool is for finding stores/sellers, contrasting with product search and store-specific tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear enough that an agent would correctly select it for store discovery, but there is no explicit exclusion guidance.

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