Find shops

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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the informally-sourced directory endpoint and the tolerant parsing of its reply, which warns the agent that fields may be missing. It also names the returned fields (id, name, city, score), valuable given there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the implementation caveat and return fields placed second. The second sentence is slightly meta but earns its place by disclosing fragility and return shape. No filler.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and partial return shape but omits pagination behavior and result-count semantics, which an agent needs to iterate results correctly. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 60%: city, kind, and query are described in-schema, but page and limit have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds nothing about pagination or the max 30/50 bounds, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for a moderately documented schema.

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 and resource (find shops by name or domain) and even names the downstream consumers (tb_shop, tb_shop_products), which helps an agent place it in a workflow. It stops short of distinguishing itself from plausible siblings like tb_stores or tb_shop, which also deal with shops.

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 implies the usage pattern (resolve a shop name/domain to an id before calling tb_shop), but never states when to choose this over tb_stores, tb_sellers, or a plain search. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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