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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'without mutating commerce state' and mentioning the channels (Commonlands MCP, Shopify-native). No contradictions. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but overall behavior is well disclosed.

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 with the primary purpose. It includes a clear rule about FoV usage. The structure is effective, though the rule about FoV could be moved to a separate section for clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description lacks details on parameter meanings and return format. It provides good context on FoV differentiation but misses broader commerce workflow context.

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 explain parameters. It does not. 'sku' is implied but not defined; quantity, agentType, buyerIntent, sensorPartNumber are entirely unexplained. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 'safe dual-channel purchase route options' for AI agents and robotics engineers, without mutation. It distinguishes itself from sensor-specific FoV tools (calculate_field_of_view, match_lens_to_sensor) by specifying that those should be used for sensor-specific FoV.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (for purchase route options) and when not to (for sensor-specific FoV, recommending alternative tools). However, it does not clarify when to use this over other commerce-related siblings like create_cart or prepare_shopify_purchase_handoff.

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