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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints. The description adds pagination behavior (default 500, max 500, cursor continuation) and a strong untrusted-data warning that goes well beyond the structured fields. Security context about merchant-authored text being data not instructions is valuable for safe agent operation.

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 untrusted-data warning is repeated three times with slight variation, which is excessive and dilutes the message. Front-loading is good (starts with core purpose), but the security content could be condensed to one or two sentences 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 read-only paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination mechanics, and critical security guidance. The main gap is not clarifying what data fields are returned or the exact relationship between after_id and next_after_id.

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 50%: limit has a description in the schema, but after_id does not. The description compensates by explaining limit defaults to 500 and cannot exceed 500, and explaining after_id's role in continuation. However, it doesn't clearly define after_id syntax or relationship to returned IDs beyond 'next_after_id'.

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+resource+ordering: 'Read the public merchant directory, oldest join first.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like browse, read_listing, and visit_store by naming the exact collection and its sort order.

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 explains pagination continuation ('continue with next_after_id while keeping the same limit') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus browse, read_listing, or visit_store. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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