search_storefronts

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

The tool is annotated readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Search' wording is consistent with a read-only operation. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as result shape, pagination behavior, or what 'storefronts' means in this context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it easy to scan. It loses one point because the category-ID mapping is duplicated from the input schema, so part of the sentence is not adding net-new value.

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 a simple read-only search, all required parameters documented, and no output schema, the description is minimal but workable. It is not fully complete because it omits any guidance about the overlapping 'search_vendors' tool and gives no sense of the returned data shape.

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 schema already documents every parameter and even the same taxonomy-node ID mapping. The description adds the 'marketplace by category and location' framing but does not explain any parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('Zola vendor marketplace'), and the two key search dimensions (category and location). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the similarly named 'search_vendors' sibling, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'by category and location' implies the natural use case, but the description states no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions and names no alternative tool. Given that 'search_vendors' exists as a sibling, the agent is left to infer which vendor-search tool fits.

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