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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the breadth of returned content (withdrawal rights, payment, cancellation rules, fees, minimum order, company details), which is important given there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the enumerated contents. The list is dense but every item is meaningful content disclosure; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents and does so thoroughly; the parameter is fully documented in schema. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation against get_shop_info, which an agent might reasonably confuse.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the exact provenance ('shop' value from find_shops) and the own-address shortcut. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline for a fully documented single parameter is a 4.

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 enumerates the concrete policy content returned (terms of sale, privacy, delivery, returns, complaints, right of withdrawal, fees, minimum order, seller company details), so an agent knows exactly what resource this fetches. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely named sibling get_shop_info, leaving that boundary to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_shop_info or find_shops. The only contextual hint (shop param not needed on a shop's own address) lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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