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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that prices and delivery times are live, that returns are 14-day, and that a Voyo own-brand warranty note and legal entity (Kohvrimaailm OÜ) are included, which tells the agent what the payload contains.

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 content inventory and ending with the usage trigger. The item list is long but each element is a distinct fact domain, so it earns its space; the sentence is dense and slightly run-on but not 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return contents, and it does so explicitly by enumerating the policy domains returned. Combined with the schema documenting the sole parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and the single 'market' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the domain mapping and the default. The description's reference to 'the market' and market-dependent prices restates what the schema already says, so the 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 the resource (store policy facts) and enumerates the specific content domains it returns: delivery, free-shipping threshold, returns, warranty, payment, contact and legal entity. This is clearly distinguishable from the product/airline siblings, which deal with entirely 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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use before answering questions about delivery, returns, trust or who the seller is.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not condition, but the siblings are unrelated enough that no routing conflict exists.

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