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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the five output fields and a cost trait ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which is real value beyond the schema. It says nothing about read-only semantics, error handling for invalid slugs/URLs, or rate limits, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste: the operation, the identifier options, the return fields, and the cost all land in the first read. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 one-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description fills the main gap by enumerating return fields and stating cost. Only the absence of sibling routing and error/pagination behavior keeps it short of complete.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by slug or store URL' restates what the schema already documents ('Merchant slug or store URL. e.g. efeturk'), adding no syntax, format, or normalization detail on top of it.

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 ('Get a Hepsiburada merchant (store)') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, alias, url, product count), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling run_hepsiburada_merchants_products, which lists a merchant's products, but the name and description are clear enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. The agent is not told to use run_hepsiburada_merchants_products when it actually wants a merchant's catalog, nor is any prerequisite (e.g. obtaining a slug) mentioned. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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