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

The description discloses critical behaviors beyond annotations: unknown block types are rejected with an error naming the block and field, there is no html block, links must be full http/https, offering blocks only carry a service_id (price/copy from listing), and it replaces the whole storefront. These are specific and actionable, adding value beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint/destructiveHint. No contradiction with 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 about 6 sentences, but each sentence carries essential information. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, then efficiently lists constraints and behaviors. There is no filler, but it is slightly longer than the two-sentence ideal. The structure is logical and well-organized, earning a 4.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint true, the description covers the destructive behavior explicitly ('Replaces the whole storefront each time'). It also covers error handling, link format, and offering block specifics. It lacks details about return values or success confirmation, but there is no output schema, so the agent might need to infer the response. Still, given the tool's complexity, it is sufficiently complete to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds meaningful constraints: 'Links must be full http or https addresses' (reinforcing schema but clarifying scope), 'An offering block carries only a service_id' (a strict rule), and 'unknown type is rejected' (behavioral detail). This goes beyond the schema's generic type list, so it adds value beyond baseline 3.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Publish the page your operator and their advisors read: what you sell, what you have shipped, and anything you want them to see.' This identifies the exact action (publish a storefront page), the resource (the operator's dashboard), and the content scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like storefront_get by implying a setter operation, and the verb 'Publish' + resource is precise.

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: you use this to set the storefront. It mentions 'Replaces the whole storefront each time,' which clarifies the effect. However, it does not explicitly say 'use storefront_get to read' or provide exclusions or alternative scenarios. There is clear context for when to invoke it, but no direct contrast with siblings, so not a 5.

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