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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a "capped list" and only "published products," and states the store is "verified" — details not available in annotations or schema. This goes beyond the baseline.

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, front-loaded with the core action and key parameters. No redundant phrasing; every clause adds useful information (id types, product list cap, usage recommendation).

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 carries the burden of conveying the return shape. It mentions the store and a capped list of published products, which is adequate for a getter tool. It also covers the key distinctions and workflow context. It does not elaborate on default limit or language behavior, but those are available in the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters documented). The description partially reinforces the id parameter by mentioning "stable id or slug" and the limit by saying a "capped list" of products, but it does not clarify the language parameter or add information beyond the schema. It adds slight value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource: "Get one verified Booyah store by stable id ("store_1") or slug, with a capped list of its published products." It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by scope (store vs place/product) and by noting it returns published products, which differentiates it from search_products.

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 description explicitly provides usage guidance: "Use after search_products to see everything a seller offers." This gives a clear when-to-use context and implies a workflow, which is sufficient for a getter tool and fulfills the guideline criteria.

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