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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond this by disclosing specific error states ('not_found' and 'credentials_required') and their causes (route not redeployed, missing ETSY_KEYSTRING/ETSY_SHARED_SECRET). This is valuable operational context not available in the 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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose before providing error caveats. The error detail is relevant for managing agent expectations, and no unnecessary words are present, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 simple get tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, identifier options, and error states including upstream deployment and credential requirements. This sufficiently prepares the agent to invoke the tool and interpret failures, making it complete for its 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond saying 'by shop_id or shop_name', which is already conveyed by the schema's descriptions. No additional parameter format or usage details are provided, 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets one Etsy shop by shop_id or shop_name and lists the specific data returned (name, listing counts, favorites, total sold, review count/average). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_etsy_listing and get_etsy_shop_listings, which focus on 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving a single shop's aggregate data, with shop_id or shop_name as identifiers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool names. The error-note also informs about environmental prerequisites, adding situational guidance.

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