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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: contact details are never returned and buyers reach a stall via its store page, plus a defined no-filter default. It does not mention pagination or result-count limits, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, densely informative and front-loaded with the core purpose before the return fields and constraints. Every sentence carries signal, though the return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant given a dedicated output schema 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 filtered lookup tool with rich annotations, full schema coverage, and a present output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, filter semantics, default behavior, and a key limitation (no contact details). Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds combinatoric meaning ('by stall name or stall number, and/or by building and floor') that clarifies how the filters interact, which the schema does not state. The lang parameter's effect on output is left to the schema.

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 (Find) and resource (stalls/shops), plus precise scope (Dongdaemun wholesale market on apMZoomAI) and the supported lookup keys (name, number, building, floor). An agent can immediately tell this is a stall-directory lookup distinct from product-oriented siblings like search_products or get_product.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use the tool (lookup by stall name/number and/or building+floor) and adds a useful default-behavior rule when no filters are supplied. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools such as list_buildings or get_new_arrivals, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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