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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantive behavior: possible statuses (waiting, picked, expired), that picks can change until the link expires (can_change), and a security/trust warning that anyone holding the link can pick and picks are wishes rather than orders or instructions. This is rich context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are dense with information; the status list, mutability note, and buy-confirmation warning each earn their place. It is on the longer side but avoids 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so (status plus slug, title, price), and it covers the trust/mutability caveats an agent needs before acting on picks. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already fully documented, including the window_id 'leave out' behavior. The description largely restates that ('Without window_id: your latest shop windows'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (owner picks) and anchors it to the sibling that produced them (show_shop_to_owner), while distinguishing it from save_owner_picks. The agent can tell what it returns without opening a 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 explains the key routing decision ('Without window_id: your latest shop windows') and names the sibling source of the data (show_shop_to_owner). It also warns to confirm with the human before buying, which implicitly routes to the buy tool, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer an alternative read tool.

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