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 only the underlying GET route, which confirms a non-mutating single-resource lookup, but says nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, or response shape.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope before the route. Nothing is wasted, but the brevity borders on under-specification rather than polished concision.

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 simple single-record read with full schema coverage and clear read-only annotations, the essentials are present. Missing is any hint of the returned payload or how a missing/invalid store id is surfaced, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (store_id, fields) are fully documented in the schema, including the numeric-id format and the field-projection pattern. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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+resource: fetch one store by id, plus the exact HTTP route GET /stores/{store_id}. It is distinguishable from the list counterpart by 'One store' vs a collection, though it never names smaregi_list_stores explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'by id'; there is no statement of when to prefer this over smaregi_list_stores or what to do when the id is unknown. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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