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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful output context by enumerating the fields returned (e.g., UCP version, MCP endpoint, capabilities), but it does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits or data freshness.

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 two sentences: a list of fields and an example. It is front-loaded with the subject ('One store's record') and contains no extraneous information, though the field list could be slightly more clearly framed as output.

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 must convey what is returned. It lists many fields, which is helpful, but it does not explain what these fields mean or how they should be interpreted. It also lacks guidance on usage or limitations, leaving the agent with a partially complete picture for this read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description includes an example input object that shows domain and country, but it does not elaborate on the purpose of the optional 'query' parameter or add meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 begins with 'One store's record:' and then lists several data fields, which hints at a retrieval tool. However, it lacks a clear action verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_store or list_store_categories.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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