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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: default unpublished state, the refusal when two storefronts list identical offers, the not_released error code when the feature is off, the required workspace-settings write scope, and the 403 for sandbox keys on unclaimed workspaces. Auth, failure modes and defaults are all disclosed.

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-loaded with the core definition before constraints, and every sentence carries a rule an agent needs (defaults, uniqueness, feature flag, auth, claim requirement). It is a single dense run-on paragraph with parenthetical asides, which costs some readability.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, uniqueness constraints, feature gating, credentials and failure codes. An agent has enough to call it correctly and to predict the main failure.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: display_name is the only required field, subdomain is derived from it by default, and offer_tags/product_ids/show_functions select the listing and must differ per storefront. Only the cross-parameter uniqueness rule is covered; individual field semantics are left to 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 and resource and then defines the resource itself: 'an agent card, llms.txt and MCP endpoint listing a selection of your public offers' at a named host. This is distinguishable from update_storefront, list_storefronts and get_storefront at a glance.

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 concrete context for use: one per product line or audience, each listing a different selection, and the prerequisite that storefronts must be switched on for the workspace. It never names the sibling alternatives (update_storefront, list_storefronts) that an agent might want instead, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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