Search OneShot packs

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses that verification status is 'stated exactly as the receipt supports' and never invented, and that it does not rank or editorialize. It also lists the exact fields returned. This provides strong behavioral transparency, though it could be slightly more explicit about result ordering.

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 composed of three sentences that front-load the purpose and then add necessary behavioral details. It is concise without being sparse, with no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the second sentence is long and packed.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values by naming the fields (title, one-liner, price, verification status, receipt summary, storefront URL). It also explains verification honesty and non-editorializing behavior. It is sufficiently complete for a search tool, though it could include information about result ordering or pagination.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for the 'query' parameter by explaining it can be a stack, problem, or niche, and gives concrete examples like 'stripe billing subscription' or 'offline sync', which go beyond the schema's examples.

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 'Search the OneShot catalog of receipt-verified agent build packs by keyword', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (get_pack, list_packs) by framing this as a keyword-based search that returns multiple matches, while also noting it does not editorialize.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to search by stack, problem, or niche. It gives examples of suitable queries. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use list_packs to browse all' or 'use get_pack for details', so exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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