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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about what information is returned (contact details, VAT rules, links, announcements, policy summaries), but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as locale-specific behavior or potential variability in announcements. The description is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and then listing the specific content areas. The final sentence about get_policy is a useful routing hint. No wasted words.

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 read-only info tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It lists the types of information returned and points to the sibling for full policy text. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention whether the output is localized based on the locale parameter, but the schema already covers that. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the locale parameter. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention that locale controls product names, slugs, and prices, which is already in the schema. The description doesn't explain how locale affects the store info output, but the schema covers the parameter meaning adequately.

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's purpose: it provides store information about Camden Tools, including contact details, VAT display rules, key page links, announcements, and policy summaries. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_policy by explicitly noting that get_policy should be used for full policy text.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (to get store info and policy summaries) and when to use an alternative (get_policy for full policy text). This is a clear usage guideline that helps the agent select the correct tool.

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