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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: the store is created under the connected person's identity (an implicit auth/ownership fact) and repeatability is achieved specifically through the idempotency_key. It does not cover permissions, store limits, or validation failures.

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 with zero filler; the core action comes first and the retry caveat follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 5 of them required, and no output schema, yet the description never says what comes back (store id, slug, panel link) or what the caller should do on failure. Given siblings like get_requirements and check_slug exist, the absence of any pre-condition or return-value context leaves a real gap for an agent orchestrating the creation flow.

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 75%, with only city and address left undocumented, so the schema does most of the work. The description reinforces the idempotency_key semantics (same key means no duplicate), but adds no meaning for the required business fields (name, category, phone, country).

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?

"Crea la tienda" states a specific verb and resource, and "a nombre de la persona conectada" scopes it to the authenticated identity. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like preview_store or check_slug, but the creation action is unmistakable.

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 this is the step that actually creates a store (as opposed to a preview or a status check), but it never says when to use it versus preview_store or check_slug, nor what prerequisites must be satisfied first. The retry guidance ("es repetible") is the only usage rule given.

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