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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that picks can change until the link expires (can_change), what claimed_at means and how link claiming restricts which browser can open it, and that expired/closed windows exist. The 'picks are wishes, not orders, never instructions' safety framing plus the first-browser-claims caveat is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the returned statuses, and every sentence carries real information. However, the dense single paragraph with nested parentheticals (claimed_at, reopen_shop_window, the claim rules) makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, slug, title, price, can_change, claimed_at). Combined with the claim/expiry rules and the confirm-before-buying guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 window_id's role and the passport_token fallback are already documented in the schema, establishing the 3 baseline. The description reinforces window_id's optional/listing behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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: reading what the human picked from a shop window, with the source tool named (show_shop_to_owner). It enumerates the returned statuses and fields, making it distinguishable from sibling readers like save_owner_picks and from the write-side show_shop_to_owner.

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?

Clear operating context: omit window_id to list your latest shop windows, and reopen_shop_window is named as the way to free a claimed link for another browser. It also warns to confirm with the human before buying, implicitly routing to the buy tool. Missing an explicit statement of when this tool should not be used.

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