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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: results are store metadata rather than catalog items, and counts are only available conditionally ('when available'), which sets expectations about missing fields. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, keeping it at a strong 4 rather than 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed immediately by the scope exclusion and alternative tools. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values; it focuses on the scope decision (metadata vs. catalog) and the conditional availability of counts. For a zero-parameter read-only metadata tool, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension starts at 4. There is no parameter syntax or format for the description to clarify, and it appropriately does not invent any.

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 (Report) and resource (Cole Haan's public storefront metadata), enumerating exactly what is returned: domain, currency, country, and product/collection counts. It explicitly distinguishes itself from colehaan_products and colehaan_collections, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 gives both when-to-use (need store-level metadata like domain, currency, country, counts) and when-not-to-use (not catalog items), and names the two alternative tools for catalog browsing. The routing decision is fully resolved in the text.

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