Find shops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and mutation profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only the returned attribute list; it says nothing about result counts, pagination interplay with page/limit, or rate limits, so the added behavioral context is modest.

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, front-loaded with purpose followed by usage, with no filler. The second sentence's embedded example is slightly awkwardly punctuated but still earns its place by demonstrating a realistic invocation.

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 7-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers filters, returned fields, and downstream routing well. It is thin on pagination/result-volume expectations and on how the default 'relevance' ranking behaves, which are the remaining gaps for an agent planning a query.

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 seven parameters are documented in the schema itself and the baseline is 3. The description's phrasing ('by name, category group, gender or courier city') largely restates the schema's query/category_group/gender/city fields rather than adding syntax, format, or interaction rules; the only genuine additions are the 'courier city' gloss and the order='most_followed' usage example.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find shops') and enumerates the exact filter dimensions (name, category group, gender, courier city), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like sh_search or sh_browse. It also states what each result carries (rating, surveys, followers, product count), so the tool's output surface is identifiable without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says the tool is for obtaining a shop_id for downstream calls to sh_shop / sh_browse / sh_search, and gives a concrete example query with the order parameter ('best-known women's clothing shops in Tehran'). It does not, however, state when NOT to use it versus siblings such as sh_filters, sh_categories, or sh_brands, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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