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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so 'Read-only' adds nothing. The permission note tied to the Shop Boss API key is genuine behavioral context beyond annotations, but pagination behavior and default page size are never mentioned despite page/pageSize parameters existing.

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 purpose front-loaded and no filler. The efficiency comes at the cost of under-specification rather than padding, which is the better failure mode.

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?

Seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no enum constraints — the description should explain that this is a paginated, filterable listing and what the filters mean. Instead it describes only the content, not how to constrain or page 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 only 14% — just shopId is documented — so the description must carry the load for the remaining six parameters. It adds no meaning for partId, partNumber, category, description, page, or pageSize, leaving filter and paging semantics entirely unexplained.

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 names the resource (inventory parts) and the data surfaced (availability, reorder levels, part details), so an agent can tell it retrieves part records. It does not differentiate from near-siblings like shopboss_list_order_parts or shopboss_list_part_sales, and the verb 'Review' is softer than 'List'.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other fifteen list_* siblings, nor when not to. The only usable context — that read access depends on the API key — is a prerequisite, not selection guidance.

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