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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a strong job: it discloses that the result includes both stated information and a list of what has NOT been stated, implies a read-only nature, and gives behavioral guardrails about not inventing missing details. It stops short of mentioning auth, rate limits, or explicit side-effect absence, but for a simple store-info retrieval tool this is solid coverage.

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 longer than average, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause adds useful information about scope, content, and usage constraints. The long list of returned fields is purposeful rather than filler, though it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, how to use it, when to use it, and a critical behavioral rule about not filling gaps. It could be more complete by stating exact response shape or confirm there is no mutation, but as-is it gives an agent enough to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the single 'store' parameter, including the ability to omit it. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing the business-level scope, so the baseline score 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 that this tool returns everything an Israeli business on AgentFeed says about itself, explicitly distinguishing it from item-level tools by saying 'not about one item' and listing the kinds of store-level information returned. It also frames itself as the tool for specific shopper questions like 'how many do you have' and 'what is your phone number', making it easy for an agent to differentiate from siblings like get_product or browse_products.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call it before answering any question about suitability, and use it for specific question types like 'how do I order' and 'what is your phone number'. It also gives a clear exclusion: never fill a gap named in the 'unknown' or 'not_stated' lists, and instead tell the shopper to ask the business. This is actionable and prevents misuse.

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