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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, network-backed read. The description adds the useful constraint that responses come from the pinned store.psacard.com origin, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or error behavior for unknown handles. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 compact sentence with the resource and domain constraint front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though it is bare enough that it reads more like a label than an instruction.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema that already defines the return shape, the description covers the essentials: what entity, which domain. Only the absence of any routing against the sibling psastore_pages keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Static page handle (URL slug)'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format examples, slug conventions, or lookup behavior, which is the expected baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 the specific resource (PSA Team Store static page) and the operation implied by 'detail', and pins the domain to store.psacard.com, which separates it from the other psastore_* tools (product, collections, sitemaps). The verb is only implicit in the noun 'detail', so it falls short of the fully explicit verb+resource formulation.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus psastore_pages (list), psastore_product, or psastore_store, nor what a caller needs to have in hand before calling. The domain pin is descriptive context, not usage guidance.

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