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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that the result is a computed onboarding summary including derived 'missing items' and recommended next steps, not just raw store fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned fields without filler. The parenthetical list of missing items is dense but aids scanning; nothing is redundant.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so field by field, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Gaps remain around error behavior for invalid store_id and how 'próximos pasos' are formatted.

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, store_id, and schema coverage is 100% with a pattern and description already in the schema. The description adds no meaning about the id format or what happens with an unknown id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (store status) and enumerates what it returns: store link, trial days, product count, missing items (logo, payments, shipping), plus next steps. An agent can tell it reports onboarding progress. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similar-sounding sibling get_requirements, which likely also reports missing items.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_requirements or get_panel_link. Usage is only weakly implied by the mention of 'lo que falta' and 'próximos pasos', which suggests a progress-check tool but never says so.

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