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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned entries (name, platform, write permission, skill, base address, owner description), but says nothing about permissions/auth needed or whether results are paginated or complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the returned fields before the routing instruction at the end. It is dense but every clause earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the fields each entry contains and by linking to shop_request. The omission of auth/pagination context is a minor gap for a simple read-only listing 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The mention of passing a name as `shop` belongs to shop_request, not this tool, and is correctly framed as routing rather than a parameter of shop_list.

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 ('List') and resource ('e-shops and APIs the owner connected on ecomdly') and enumerates the fields returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling shop_request by routing to it, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 closing instruction 'Pass the name as `shop` to shop_request' makes clear this is the discovery step that precedes shop_request, giving concrete workflow context. It does not state any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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