Find shops by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the one thing annotations cannot convey: that the result is a set of shop ids suitable for chaining into em_shop. It does not mention the 48-per-page pagination or match semantics (prefix vs substring), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The action and return value come first, and the routing guidance follows, so the reader gets the essential fact before the alternatives.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing: the purpose, the routing decision against em_shop and em_offers, and the id-shaped return are all present. No output schema exists, but the description already states the return 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 coverage is 100%, so both the partial-name `query` and the `page` parameter with its 48-shops-per-page note are already documented. The description's "by name" restates rather than extends that, and it says nothing about pagination, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Search Emalls' list of shops by name") and adds the output contract ("return their ids"), which is exactly what an agent needs to distinguish it from em_shop (fetch by id) and em_offers (sellers of a product). No schema reading required to tell the siblings apart.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ("when the user names a shop and you need its id for em_shop") and an explicit alternative with its own condition ("To see who sells a product use em_offers"). Both the when and the when-not are named, not inferred.

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