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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context — that the return is both an explanation of the issue and remediation guidance — plus concrete example issue ids. It doesn't describe the shape of the response, which slightly limits it given there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and remediation value; the parenthetical examples earn their place by clarifying the parameter domain.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (meaning plus fix guidance) and where the id comes from, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It could add a bit on response structure, but nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already says the id comes from top_issues[].id, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating representative issue ids (altText, gtin, jsonld, policy:refund-policy), which conveys the domain of valid values beyond the schema text.

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 ('returns what ... means and how to fix it') plus the resource (a readiness issue id), and explicitly ties it to the sibling check_store_ai_readiness as the source of those ids. An agent can distinguish it from check_store_ai_readiness without opening either 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?

The description makes the usage context clear: this is a follow-up lookup for an issue id produced by check_store_ai_readiness. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives beyond that, so it stops short of a 5.

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