store_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explicitly reaches an external service over the network and mentions pagination behavior via skip + limit. It does not discuss rate limits or result shape, but the annotation coverage reduces the burden and the added detail is useful.

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?

Three short sentences carry the purpose, workflow, pagination, external-service context, and an exclusion rule. There is no filler, and the most important purpose statement is front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the resource, query mechanism, pagination, network/access expectations, and next steps for acting on results. Although there is no output schema, the mention of store_get for full details effectively indicates that search returns summary results. No critical information for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description confirms that 'search' is a keyword, and that skip and limit control pagination, adding slight value beyond the schema. However, it does not add meaningful detail about the 'order' parameter, and most parameter semantics already live in the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the public PlayCanvas asset store by keyword.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by mentioning the intended workflow with store_get and store_download and explicitly excluding project-asset searches via list_assets.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: it tells the agent to use store_get for full details, then store_download to import, and includes a direct 'When NOT to use' clause pointing to list_assets for project-local assets. This leaves little ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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