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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), the description discloses graceful degradation to verified=false on backend error or missing brand, and promises a stable response shape. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone don't provide.

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 dense but each sentence serves a purpose: function, usage, error behavior, and role. It stays concise despite covering multiple aspects, with critical info front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides the exact return shape and names all fields. It covers the normal path, failure mode, and integration point, making it self-sufficient for a 1-parameter tool.

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 input schema only defines brandSlug with a regex pattern; the description clarifies it is the 'single shop slug' and ties it to the attestationUid round-trip from find_inventory. This adds domain meaning to an otherwise raw identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve the standalone droplinked brand attestation for a single shop slug.' This clearly distinguishes it as a read/verification operation scoped to one brand, distinct from cross/request/status siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this AFTER find_inventory... before proceeding to checkout.' Also notes the agent's role as the verification UX, giving strategic context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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