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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The only behavioral claim the description adds, "Missing evidence is counted separately," is unexplained jargon that gives no actionable insight into what the tool computes or returns. With no output schema, a reader learns nothing about the result shape beyond a vague hint that gaps are tallied.

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 with no padding, which is appropriately sized. However, the second sentence is cryptic filler rather than front-loaded useful detail, so brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficiency.

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?

A four-parameter tool with required nested free-form input, an enum, and no output schema demands substantial explanatory text, and this provides none. An agent cannot determine what to put in "values" or what a call will produce. The definition is not adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0% across four parameters, including a free-form nested "values" object whose allowable keys and meaning are completely undocumented. The description only obliquely references "storefront" and says nothing about "values", "limit", "offset", or the eu/pl enum. This is exactly the case where the description must compensate for the schema and it does not.

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 says it will "Run the native SurgeX equipment selector for this storefront," which conveys a rough domain (power/equipment selection for a given storefront) but uses a vague verb ("run") and never states what the tool actually produces or configures. The name configure_power suggests configuration, while the description suggests an evaluation/selector invocation, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous. The sibling describe_power_selector is not distinguished from it at all.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the closely related siblings describe_power_selector, get_products, or configure_mediahub. No preconditions, no exclusions, and no statement of what a caller must have prepared before invoking it. Usage must be entirely inferred from the tool name.

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