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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the API key and mail credentials are never returned, and orders live in exactly one folder — a domain constraint the agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the most important item (folders and their role in filtering/moving orders), followed by settings and the credential exclusion. The trailing 'GET /store' is marginally redundant but costs almost nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values and does so: identity fields, folder mapping, and named settings categories, plus an explicit statement of what is withheld. Nothing needed to call it and interpret the result is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to add and nothing is misrepresented. The description spends its words on the return shape instead, which is the right tradeoff.

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 exactly what the tool retrieves — store name/id, folders (id -> name), and key settings (timezone, locale, stock behavior, shipping methods) — with a concrete endpoint anchor ('GET /store'). No sibling tool reads store-level configuration, so an agent can place it immediately.

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?

Explains the operational reason to call it: folder ids 'are needed to filter and move orders,' which implicitly routes the agent here before orderdesk_list_orders/orderdesk_move_orders. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use statement or an alternative to weigh against, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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