search_storefronts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no pagination behavior despite limit/offset params, no note on result ordering, rate limits, or coverage of the marketplace.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first. It is efficient, though the enum mapping duplicates what the schema already states, making it slightly redundant rather than additive.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the definition leaves the result shape, pagination contract, and relationship to sibling search/get tools unstated. The annotations carry the safety profile, but the agent still lacks enough to choose this tool confidently over search_vendors.

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 all five parameters including the taxonomy_node_id mapping are already documented in the schema. The parenthetical ID list repeats the schema's taxonomy_node_id description verbatim, adding no new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Zola vendor marketplace) plus the two filtering dimensions (category, location). However, it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like search_vendors, list_vendors, or get_storefront, so an agent cannot tell which search surface applies without opening schemas.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative-routing guidance is given. Given that search_vendors and get_storefront exist as apparent alternatives, the absence of any disambiguation is a real gap.

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