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 concrete behavioral value by disclosing error behavior: an unknown store_id returns a not-found error, letting the agent plan for that case.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first front-loads the returned fields, the second covers the parameter's provenance and the failure mode. No redundancy or filler.

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 present, the field enumeration is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the description still covers purpose, parameter sourcing, and error handling. Complete for a single-id read tool; missing only an explicit pointer to the sibling that provides the id in 'use X to list' phrasing.

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% and the single parameter is well documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by specifying the id's type ('numeric') and its exact source path (stores[].id), which helps the agent obtain a valid value.

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 specific verb+resource ('Adidas store detail for one store id') and enumerates exactly what comes back (name, status, phone, address, coordinates, hours, services). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling adidas_stores by operating on a single id.

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 establishes the workflow context by telling the agent to take store_id from an 'adidas_stores result's stores[].id field', implying you list first then drill in. It stops short of an explicit when-not or exclusion statement.

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