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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does convey substantial return-content detail (stock, prices, gold, item states), which softens the gap. However, it never states that the call is strictly read-only, what the failure mode is when the party is not in a settlement, or anything about permissions, so a meaningful disclosure burden remains unmet.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and backed by the availability rule. The flavor phrasing ("where the party stands") costs a little density but does not obscure meaning.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description earns credit for describing the payload shape in detail. It is still incomplete for a shop tool: nothing about what happens when no merchant exists at the location, whether inventory changes between calls, or how this pairs with ad_buy_item/ad_sell_item.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single tableId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no scoping or format detail about tableId beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource precisely — the merchant shop for a table — and enumerates its contents (stock with book prices, party gold, per-character item lists with equip/attune/identified state). That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like ad_get_me or ad_buy_item, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them, and the verb "See" is softer than a clear read verb.

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?

"Settlements host merchants; the party's home base always does" gives an availability precondition, implying when the tool is callable, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance and no mention of what to do if no merchant is present. 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.