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

Annotations only supply openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden and does it well: it discloses that the token is validated before anything is stored (ordering/failure semantics), how the multi-shop result behaves, and a security constraint (never echo the token). These are meaningful traits beyond the annotation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scoping, then validation behavior, then the multi-shop retry path, then the sibling redirect. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the failure mode, the multi-shop result shape, the retry path, and the security handling — enough for an agent to invoke and recover correctly without further context.

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 five parameters are already documented, including shop_id's 'omit on the first call' note. The description reinforces the shop_id retry flow but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Connect), a specific resource (API-token fulfillment provider with examples Printify and Gelato), and the target (a store). It also carves itself apart from the nearest sibling by explicitly routing Printful users to start_channel_connect.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing (Printify/Gelato here, Printful via start_channel_connect because it needs a browser) and a concrete when-to-reuse condition (call again with shop_id set when the token maps to multiple shops). No alternatives are left to inference.

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