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

Given no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the response contains the API token, shop_id, and user shown only once, and warns to save the token immediately. It also reveals the multi-day human process required for a full contract, which is critical for agent decision-making.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives critical behavioral details about the response, and the third provides context on additional requirements. Every sentence is earned.

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?

Given the tool creation nature, complexity (nested address object, token return), lack of output schema, and wealth of sibling tools, the description covers purpose, behavioral traits, post-invocation steps, and human prerequisites comprehensively. No obvious gaps remain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'shop_name' prints on labels and 'display_name' defaults to shop_name, which are not in the schema. However, it doesn't add semantics for 'phone' or 'address' beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool creates a real ProShip account and shop for Thailand Post EPS shipping. It uses specific verbs ('Creates') and nouns ('ProShip account and shop'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_order by focusing on account creation rather than order operations.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (for initialization/registration) and provides important post-usage guidance about saving the token and noting the one-time display. It mentions that a full thaipost contract requires additional human process, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_shops or create_order, which would clarify when not to use this tool.

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