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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description says the tool 'list[s] one shop on a city page' — i.e. publishes a shop entry, a mutation — which the 'put' name reinforces. The description also gives no context on permissions beyond 'Operators only', what happens to an existing entry, or what the website/checked/checked_url fields are verified against.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the access restriction first and no filler. However, the brevity is achieved by omitting essential information rather than by efficient writing.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and annotations that appear inconsistent with the described action, this one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot construct a valid call or predict the effect from the description alone.

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% and the description supplies no meaning for any of the 7 parameters. Names like 'checked', 'checked_url', 'service', and 'place' carry no self-evident semantics, and the description does not explain how 'website' differs from 'checked_url' or what 'checked' should contain.

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 names a resource (one shop) and a target (a city page) and hints at the data source ('what its own public website says'), but the verb 'list' is ambiguous — it could mean reading a listing or publishing one onto a page. Combined with the 'put' name and the presence of sibling tools like print_shop_remove and print_shops_in_city, an agent cannot reliably tell whether this is a read or a write.

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?

'Operators only' establishes an audience restriction, which is real guidance, but there is no when-to-use versus print_shops_in_city, print_city_put, print_shop_remove, or print_shop_removals. No prerequisites, no ordering, no exclusion cases are stated.

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