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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses error codes, the 403 sandbox-key refusal, and the required credential scope — the exact behaviors that cause silent failures elsewhere. This is precisely the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 resource and its returned fields, then appends constraints in descending priority. The middle enumeration is a long run-on list, slightly dense, but every clause carries real information; nothing is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned structure (subdomains, domains, DNS, agent addresses, limits, suggested subdomain). Combined with the auth and error semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret failures.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema has no burden to compensate for. The description instead spends its words on return shape, which is the right trade.

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 ('List your workspace's storefronts') and immediately enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It also defines what a storefront is, which separates it from billing/domain siblings like get_storefront or add_storefront_domain.

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 preconditions — storefronts feature switched on, workspace-settings read scope, claimed workspace — and the failure mode (error code not_released, 403 for sandbox keys). It does not explicitly contrast with get_storefront (single) or create_storefront, so routing between siblings is left implicit.

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