ads_dstore_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It usefully discloses the trust model (results are verified public inventory; AIKI proposals are unverified until dStore checks them), but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination via cursor/limit, default sort, or how results are ranked.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguation second. No filler, though it spends a whole clause on AIKI framing rather than on how to call the tool.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-schema-description, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is far too thin. It doesn't tell the agent how to narrow results across the many filters, whether q is required, or what a search response contains.

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 0% across 11 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Filters like region, category, platform, pricing_model, currency, lang, format, and cursor pagination are left entirely unexplained, so the agent must guess intent from bare property names.

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: search dStore's verified public advertising inventory. It also implicitly scopes the domain (channels/sites for mutual promotion) and separates itself from the AIKI proposal sibling, though 'inventory' alone is slightly abstract.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for finding channels or sites for mutual promotion, and explicitly names a related-but-different path (AIKI community proposals) that stays unverified. No exclusion of other sibling search tools (e.g. ads_network_inventory_list, ads_tg_resource_list), which keeps it below 5.

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