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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety needs no restating; the description instead adds two things annotations cannot: the seller_not_found failure mode for unknown or non-public sellers, and a warning that seller-written store name/about/social fields are untrusted content. It stops short of anything about result size or field details, but an output schema covers returns.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to call it plus the alternative, then the error case and the injection warning. The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and there is no 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 single-record read with a full output schema and complete annotations, everything an agent needs is present: identity of the resource, the sole parameter's provenance, the failure behavior, the sibling to use for products, and an explicit untrusted-content caveat.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single required parameter, the schema already documents that username comes from seller_username or seller.username and that matching is case-insensitive and pattern-constrained. The description adds no format, normalization, or lookup nuance beyond that, so this lands 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 verb and resource — 'Get one Kurodyne seller's public store profile as its store page shows it' — and narrows scope by calling it the public store view, including the page URL. No sibling tool touches sellers, so the distinction from get_product/search_products is unambiguous from the description 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a recommendation depends on who sells a product') and names the complementary alternative ('search_products with seller for that seller's products'), clarifying that this tool is not the way to list a seller's inventory. That is a when-to-use, a when-to-use-something-else, and a pointer to the right tool.

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