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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the call is BILLABLE against the plan's outlet allowance and is refused once exhausted, the platform asynchronously seeds a stock row of 0 for every product, and outlet country is immutable. These are exactly the traits an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries a distinct operational fact (required fields, no country, billable, stock seeding, no Stripe). It is long — eight sentences — but none is filler.

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 no-output-schema creation tool, the description covers preconditions (required address, merchant confirmation), cost/limits (billable allowance), post-call side effects (background stock rows), and out-of-scope integrations (Stripe). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents every parameter and marks the five required ones. The description reiterates that name/address/city/state/postCode are REQUIRED and adds the consequence that an invented address ends up on receipts, but supplies no format or syntax detail beyond that.

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 states a concrete verb+resource ('Open a new point of sale') and pins down exactly which form it corresponds to (the cabinet's Add Outlet form). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling hub_update_outlet, hub_get_outlets and hub_delete_outlet.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Confirm with the merchant before calling') and when-not guidance ('Do NOT try to set a country', 'Linking a Stripe account... is NOT possible from here — the merchant does that in Settings → Outlets'). The alternative action path for Stripe linking is named outright.

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