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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only statement is consistent and reinforced; the description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it costs one read and loads no page, returns nothing for non-Shopify stores, and explains the special meaning of an empty result. No contradiction with annotations.

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 text is dense and front-loaded with the primary use case, then return payload, exclusion, and edge-case behavior. Minor redundancy exists in restating 'Problems found in the text' after the opening clause, but every sentence contributes useful routing or boundary information.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what each finding carries (item, current text, reason, suggestion, confidence, admin link). It also covers expected empty results and scope limitations, making it sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema documents all three parameters (limit, status, website) with descriptions covering 100%, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not need to re-explain parameters and adds no new parameter-specific details, keeping this at the baseline.

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 action ('list') and resource ('content findings') and immediately defines them as accessibility problems in merchant-authored words rather than theme code. It also explicitly separates itself from list_alt_findings, so an agent can disambiguate by text 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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when the accessibility problem is in the WORDS a merchant wrote rather than in the theme's code') and says when not to use it ('Do not use it for images or alt text — that is list_alt_findings'). It also warns about Shopify-only availability and the 'never reviewed' versus 'reviewed and clean' distinction.

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