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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior: stores are sorted by score (highest first) and returned with domain, category, score, and grade. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schematic annotation.

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 short sentences: purpose, usage context, and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the most essential information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers when to use it, what it returns, and how results are ordered. The schema fills in parameter details, and the annotations cover safety. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'category' and 'minimum score' but adds no deeper meaning—the schema already provides defaults, max, and guidance for these parameters.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('verified UCP stores'), and the optional filters ('category and minimum score'). It also differentiates this from sibling list-style tools by focusing on stores rather than categories or generic search results.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when the user wants to shop by category' and gives concrete example queries. It does not state exclusions or direct users to a specific alternative tool, so it falls slightly short of fully explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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