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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the semantic context that the result is the store set for combined figures, which is useful but not a behavioral trait like side effects or auth requirements. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the field list and a single clarifying statement about its role in combined figures. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns and the purpose it serves. No missing information is needed 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them (100% coverage by trivially having none). The description does not need to add parameter information. It does mention output fields, but that is not parameter semantics; the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and no parameter info is added.

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 verb ('List'), a clear resource ('the stores linked to this account'), and enumerates the fields returned (platform, currency, timezone, connection state, last sync time). It also clarifies the purpose by defining this as the store set for combined figures, distinguishing it from other get_* tools like get_markets or get_integration_status.

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?

The description provides context that this tool defines the store set available for combined figures, which implies when to use it (when you need the authoritative list of stores for aggregated metrics). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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