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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned rows (plan, live-on-storefront, accepts drafts), which is useful, but says nothing about scoping to the connected store's permissions or result size.

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?

One dense sentence plus a two-word directive. Every clause carries information (what is listed, what each entry contains, where to start) and nothing is wasted.

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 simple read-only single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, and enumerating returned fields compensates for the missing output schema. The clear gap is that it never disambiguates from list_ea_apps and find_ea_app, which an agent must choose between.

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% and the single `store` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default behavior and the pointer to list_stores. The description contributes nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the EA apps installed on the connected Shopify store") and enumerates what is returned: plan, live status, and draft acceptance. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identically named siblings list_ea_apps and find_ea_app, leaving the agent to guess which lister applies.

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?

"Start here" implies a sequencing/entry-point role, which is genuine usage guidance, but it is thin and unelaborated. No explicit when-not condition is given, and the two closest alternatives (list_ea_apps, find_ea_app) are never mentioned.

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