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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's real contribution is the disclosure that the result includes the store address and admin login but never the key or login token, plus the existence of a 'needs support' terminal state. That is meaningful security and outcome context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about error cases or expiry of the token.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the state enumeration and followed by the security-relevant return promise. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain the return shape, and it still flags the key contents. For a one-parameter polling tool this is nearly complete; only polling cadence and terminal-state handling are left implicit.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states it is taken from the shopzi_create_store result. The description adds no further meaning about the token (validity, lifetime, reuse), so baseline 3 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 names a specific resource (store creation status) and enumerates the concrete states it reports: waiting for browser, waiting for card save, creating, done, needs support. That makes the tool easy to tell apart from siblings in practice, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with shopzi_create_store, which is where the status_token originates.

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: the state list suggests polling during an in-progress creation flow, and the schema notes the token comes from shopzi_create_store. The description itself gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or polling guidance (e.g., how often to call, whether to stop after a terminal state).

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