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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that entries are manually reviewed and what fields appear, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination behavior for a directory listing. It also restates return fields that the existing output schema already defines.

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 the resource. The field enumeration is somewhat redundant now that an output schema exists, but it is compact and readable rather than padded.

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?

With only one optional parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how the filter narrows it. Only the absence of any ordering/result-size expectation keeps it short of full completeness.

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 documents the ISO-2 country code with example values. The description adds the behavior that omitting it returns all stores, but otherwise duplicates the schema rather than adding format or edge-case detail (e.g. case sensitivity, invalid codes).

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?

Names the concrete resource set ('Las tiendas, marcas y diseñadores independientes de Werop') and even enumerates the attributes each entry carries (nombre, tipo, país, localidad, prendas, looks, dirección), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_product or search_products, but those are plainly different resources.

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 only implied: browse the store/brand directory. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over a sibling, no prerequisites, and no note that the list is the full curated directory (though 'revisados uno a uno' hints at completeness). The 'Con «country»…' sentence is a filter rule, not usage guidance.

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