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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the HGRApi channel header is resolved internally, but it does not describe what the shipping options contain or how they relate to later shipping-address/dispatch calls. The 'ChannelOAuthId resolved internally' phrase also sits awkwardly next to a required, caller-supplied channelOAuthId parameter, which could confuse an agent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic ('HGRApi Header channel'), but nothing is redundant.

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?

A read-only single-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema carries most of its own weight, so the description needn't explain return values. It is nearly complete but omits any pointer to what the loaded options are for (e.g. selecting shipping on an order), which would help an agent chain it.

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% and the single parameter is documented as coming from hgr_list_channels, so the schema does the work. The description adds little beyond repeating the channel notion, and its 'resolved internally' wording mildly undercuts rather than clarifies the parameter's origin.

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 ('Loads marketplace shipping options') and constrains scope to 'one visible store'. It does not name or contrast with any sibling (e.g. hgr_load_business_policies, hgr_set_shipping_address), so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

'for one visible store' implies the per-store context, and the channelOAuthId hint connects it to hgr_list_channels, but the description never states when to call this instead of related shipping/listing tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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