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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add genuinely useful context: the API is a preview that may change without a version bump, and the response excludes payment or gift-card data. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, with the preview/instability caveat and data-scope exclusion front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the phrase 'with optional company registration numbers' is slightly ambiguous about whether they are returned or filterable.

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?

One required parameter and no output schema keep the burden moderate, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description never explains the locationId input or what the merchant list contains beyond a broad scope note, leaving gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0%, and the only parameter (locationId) is documented only by the schema's pattern constraints. The description says 'at the location' but provides no format, expected prefix, or sourcing guidance for locationId, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 states the resource returned (legal sellers at a location, with optional company registration numbers), which is a specific enough purpose to distinguish it from sibling list tools such as cliento_list_locations or cliento_list_products. It does not name a sibling, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite beyond the required locationId, and no exclusions other than the data-scope note about payment/gift-card data. 'Preview API' signals instability but not usage conditions.

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