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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the response surfaces supported delivery types, which the output schema likely documents anyway; no auth, rate-limit, or error behavior is described.

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 filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the workflow hint. Every sentence carries information.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete safety annotations needs little more. The only shortfall is the absence of guidance on how this relates to store_list, which matters given the sibling set.

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 a single required storeId documented as "Okam store id." The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or origin, so the schema does all the work and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get store details") and names the notable payload content ("supported delivery types"). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling store_list, though the required storeId implies a single-store fetch rather than an enumeration.

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?

"Choose a delivery type before listing menu prices" implies a workflow ordering relative to menu_list, but it never says when to call this versus store_list or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. Usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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