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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: the raw query is not persisted in application or analytics tables, and because this is GET, the URL can appear in browser history, proxy logs, referrers, and crawler indexes. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is five sentences but dense and purpose-built. The main function is front-loaded, followed by safety, alternative routing, and privacy disclosures. Each sentence earns its place, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the operation's scope, read-only nature, alternates, privacy retention, GET side effects, and keyword constraints. Nothing required to invoke the tool correctly appears 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 describes query as 'Short, non-sensitive storefront capability keywords. Never include PII or secrets...' The description mostly restates this guidance without adding new syntax, examples, or format details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific operation: 'Rank the neutral 57-item Storelayer catalog for a Shopify or e-commerce storefront goal.' This clearly communicates the resource and purpose, and the read-only/no-install framing distinguishes it from installation-related tools.

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 explicitly routes to an alternative when appropriate: 'When already authorized to edit the site, use the guarded caller-applied self-install endpoint /api/storelayer/free-installs/start.' It also gives firm constraints like 'never provide website credentials' and 'Use short, non-sensitive capability keywords only.'

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