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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds real value beyond that: the error behavior when a store hasn't been revealed and the no-credit-cost rule for revealed groups. It does not say whether repeated calls are idempotent or what the response contains, keeping 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 action, then prerequisites and the cost caveat. Nothing is redundant, though the reveal-related instructions could be tightened into fewer clauses.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisite, failure mode, and cost model — the things an agent needs before calling. Only return-value expectations and idempotency are unaddressed.

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 50%: storeId is documented in the schema and reinforced by the description's pointer to searchStores rows, while status is only an enum of self-explanatory values. The description adds the sourcing hint but no guidance on choosing a status, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 and resource ('Set the outreach status of one store') plus scope ('one store that you revealed'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like revealStores and searchStores without needing the 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?

Gives explicit prerequisites and ordering: use revealStores first, take storeId from a searchStores row, and expect an error otherwise. It even states the cost condition (revealed group costs no credit), leaving nothing to inference.

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