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

The only behavioral claim, 'Read-only', merely restates the annotation readOnlyHint=true and adds nothing about what is returned, error behavior for a bad id, or whether brand_id/workspace_id are required. With full annotation coverage the bar is lower, but the description contributes no context beyond the structured hints.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the lookup key and safety mode are stated first. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant against the annotations, which is the only wasted clause.

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 four-parameter tool with a nested object, 50% schema coverage, and no output schema, this is thin. It does not explain the query override, the brand_id/workspace_id scoping, or the expected return shape, so the definition is not self-sufficient.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, yet it only covers the id lookup key. It says nothing about the optional 'query' override object or the 'brand_id' parameter, leaving two of four parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 with singular scope ('Read one connected e-commerce store by id'), which implicitly separates it from the plural aidelly_list_ecommerce_stores sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the singular/plural wording.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must guess that this is the by-id counterpart to aidelly_list_ecommerce_stores; nothing tells it when a single-store fetch is preferable to listing or to aidelly_sync_ecommerce_store.

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