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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that facts are presented 'as the site states them,' signalling site-authored rather than computed data, but it does not discuss freshness, caching, or return format.

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 a single efficient sentence that packs in the relevant content categories. It is slightly list-heavy and lacks a leading verb, but every item earns its place by clarifying scope.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the content domains well enough for correct selection and invocation. Additional detail about return shape is unnecessary without an output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The empty schema is fully consistent with the description, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 enumerates the specific business facts returned (timings, delivery, minimums, set-up, decoration methods, samples, returns, contact details), making the resource clear. It does not include an explicit verb, relying on the title for that, but the content scope distinguishes it from product, quote, and order siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed content: an agent can infer this tool is for business-policy or logistics questions rather than product details or quotes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as get_product or get_quote.

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