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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the non-mutating reading of 'Says' is consistent with them. The description adds that the response includes a catalog sample and 'next steps', which hints at recommendation-style output. It says nothing about permissions, whether Komers linkage is required before calling, or freshness of the reported state.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the actionable instruction 'Call this first', followed by the payload inventory. The parenthetical about Komers is a slightly heavy aside but it earns its place by explaining what a 'Komers store' holds. No filler phrases.

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, describing what the response contains (selling mode, store/catalog detail, settings, storefront built status, next steps) is the right compensating move, and the single parameter is fully documented by the schema. No nesting or enums to explain. Minor gap: no indication what happens when no Komers store is linked.

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?

There is a single parameter, 'site', and schema coverage is 100% with its own description ('Site slug (e.g. "kopitiam-muar") or id'). The description never mentions the parameter, so the schema carries all the semantic load, which is the baseline-3 case rather than a deficiency.

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 tool reports how a site can sell, enumerating concrete contents: linked Komers store, product count, categories, settings, and storefront build state. That is a specific verb-plus-resource, not a restatement of 'shop_status'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like komers_status, komers_store_status, or store_status, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

'Call this first for anything about selling online' gives a clear entry-point rule, which is genuinely useful for orienting an agent before it reaches for set_shop or build_shop. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g., versus komers_status), so no explicit routing away from siblings.

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