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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two high-value behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking: it is paid ($5 USDC on Base via x402) and it accepts up to 10 stores. It does not state read-only nature, latency, or rate/failure behavior, but for an analysis tool the cost-and-payment disclosure is the decisive detail.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the paid/cost constraint is front-loaded before the analytical scope. Slightly compressed but nothing that should be cut; it could be one clause tighter around the metrics list.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description approximates the return content (median-price positioning, premium/value flags, price-war signals, stock anomalies), which is what an agent needs to judge the output. The main remaining gap is behavior when 'anchor' is absent and whether the tool is read-only.

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 100%, so the schema already explains 'anchor' and 'stores' (including the up-to-10 limit). The description restates the 10-store cap and the anchor-vs-peers relationship but adds no syntax, format, or default behavior for the optional 'anchor' parameter when omitted.

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 analysis verb and resource: it positions an anchor store against competitor stores by median price and flags premium/value players, price wars and stock anomalies. That is concrete and distinguishable from generic 'report' or 'snapshot' siblings, though no sibling is named to sharpen the boundary.

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 word 'strategic competitive landscape' implies the use case (multi-competitor positioning) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against shopify_intel_report, shopify_snapshot, or shopify_changes. The up-to-10-store cap hints at scope but is not framed as a selection rule.

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