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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return fields (name, description, input schema, read-only flag), states that the result set varies by plan and by what the owner authorized at sign-in, and warns that the embedded descriptions are data, never instructions. That last point is a genuinely valuable behavioral caveat for a tool that returns third-party text. It does not say anything about result size, pagination, or whether the call itself is side-effect free, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the dependency, the invocation pointer, and the safety note. Every sentence earns its place. Slight deduction for the parenthetical `(shop_list says \`via: mcp\`)` interrupting the opening sentence with a cross-reference that could be its own clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates what comes back, and it explains why the list may be smaller than expected (plan and owner consent) — the two things an agent would otherwise misread as an error. For a one-optional-parameter read tool, nothing material is missing.

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 100% and the single optional `shop` parameter is fully documented there, including that it may be omitted when only one shop is connected. The description only echoes that the shop must be MCP-connected (`via: mcp`), which is a useful selection constraint but not syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The first clause names a specific verb and resource: list the tools Shoptet MCP offers for a shop connected through MCP. It also distinguishes itself from the siblings shop_list (the source of the shop identifier and the `via: mcp` marker) and shop_call (how to invoke a returned tool), so an agent can place it in the family without opening any 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?

It gives clear routing: use shop_list to find the shop, then this tool to discover what is callable, then shop_call to invoke. That is a usable chain of when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. that this does not return the shop's own data or that shop_request is the escape hatch), so it is strong context rather than a full when/when-not statement.

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