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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the 'Members only' authorization requirement and by detailing the configuration content returned, which substitutes for the missing output schema.

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?

Purpose and return contents are front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by the usage routing and a docs link. The long enumeration is heavy but justified given there is no output schema; little of it 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 return-value burden and does so thoroughly, while also covering auth (Members only) and disambiguation from quoteShipping. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is 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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, where the schema already documents projectId and its source (findUserProjectsTool). The description adds no format or syntax detail for the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Describe) and resource (how a rikma delivers what it sells), then enumerates the exact configuration facets returned: setup status, currency, handling days, zones, methods, pickup points, per-product rules. It is unmistakably distinct from quoteShippingTool and the rest of the shop/product siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: for "how much is delivery of X to <city>?" use quoteShipping instead, because it prices a real cart. That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, plus a hard constraint (Members only) that gates invocation.

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