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

Annotations already mark this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive public read, and the description adds meaningful disclosure: no feed address, no item links, partner signed-in view alternative, and error.code not_found behavior. This is substantially more behavioral context than the annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the report purpose and contains no filler. However, it is a single very dense sentence with a long enumeration of issue codes, so the structure could be clearer even though the content is useful.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining return contents; it does so with health states, counts, issue codes, affected items, visibility limits, and error behavior. Together with the explicit alternative for uncompared feeds, this is complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage and already documents slug as coming from list_shops or the deals shops endpoint. The description does not add further meaning about the slug parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and operation: the feed-read diagnostic report for a compared shop. It names the core contents (health, counts, coded issues) and distinguishes the tool from check_shop_feed for shops not yet compared.

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 explicitly routes the agent to check_shop_feed when the feed is not compared yet. It also states that this is the public view without feed addresses or item links, clarifying the context in which 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.