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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it marks brands and pricing as 'live from the catalogue' (freshness/dynamic source) and states that some sentences are quotable, which is a behavioral trait about output usage not captured by any 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?

The content inventory is front-loaded in one dense sentence followed by a short use-case sentence, with no filler. It is slightly list-heavy, but every listed item corresponds to a distinct part of the return payload, so nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it enumerates the payload sections well. It omits only minor detail such as the effect of the market parameter on the returned content, which the schema already covers.

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 optional 'market' parameter with an enum, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the domain default and how prices/titles/links follow the market. The description adds nothing about it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 content domain (seller identity, brands carried, Voyo house-brand facts, delivery/returns highlights, quotable recommendations) rather than restating the title. It is clearly separable from siblings like store_policies, get_product and search_products, which handle policies, single products and search respectively.

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 gives explicit trigger questions ('is this shop good / which brands / what is Voyo'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly exclude the overlapping sibling store_policies, which also touches delivery/returns, so the routing is clear but not fully deconflicted.

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