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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds real context beyond them: that sharing the shop_url drives revenue to the caller and that a key is required. It does not mention duplicate-add behavior despite idempotentHint=false, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending on outcomes and the auth requirement. Slightly chatty framing ("(like a storefront)") but nothing is wasted for an agent.

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 only 2 parameters, an output schema absent, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the effect, the payoff, and the auth prerequisite. It leaves implicit where shop_url comes from (presumably get_shop), a minor omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented, and the description only loosely restates that the note explains your recommendation. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond 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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource — put a listing on your shop shelf with a recommendation note — and names the reseller-share concept that defines the action. It implicitly separates itself from shop_remove and get_shop, but never names them, so the task is clear without explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for merchandise that pays a reseller share, and a key is required. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance relative to alternatives like resell, create_listing, or boost_listing, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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