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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, but that is largely duplicated by the output schema; it says nothing about rate limits, auth, or defaulting behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no redundancy. 'IKEA's own' is minor filler but arguably signals first-party data.

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 an output schema covering the return shape and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to identify the resource and scope, which it does. The cross-reference to ikea_store's slug input is a useful bonus.

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 (country, language) and their defaults are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'the requested country' and never mentions language, adding essentially no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 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?

States a concrete resource ('IKEA's own directory of physical store locations for the requested country') and enumerates the fields returned. It implicitly separates itself from the singular sibling ikea_store by noting the slug is usable as that tool's input, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

Clear context: this is the per-country store directory, and the closing note ('Each slug is directly usable as ikea_store's own slug input') gives a real routing hint for chaining into the detail tool. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion is stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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