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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond these by warning that fee schedules may be incomplete and that an unlisted fee is not a guarantee no such fee applies, plus noting that fee inclusion varies per unit. These are meaningful behavioral caveats.

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 four sentences with the core purpose and resource front-loaded in the first sentence. The fee-schedule caveats are necessary context, and each sentence adds value; only a minor amount of redundancy exists.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the returned record contains and adds important caveats about fee data reliability. It does not specify the exact return shape or tell the agent where rooftop_slug originates, but the core information needed to call and interpret the tool is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'Pass rooftop_slug.' It does not explain the slug's format, where to obtain it, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the parameter's semantics almost entirely to inference from its name.

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 clearly states the tool returns one named rooftop's store record and enumerates the contents: name, dealer group, OEM programs, location/contact metadata, and fee schedule. This is a specific single-record lookup, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as inventory_get or network_directory.

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 explicit routing guidance by pointing to quote_preview when the question is whether a listed price includes a fee, and it advises confirming final charges with the dealer. It covers the most important alternative tool but does not discuss when to prefer stores over other siblings.

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