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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds the read scope ('one store profile'). It does not describe pagination or failure behavior for an invalid path, but for a read-only single-record fetch that gap is minor.

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: the first front-loads the verb, resource, identifier type, and returned fields; the second handles routing. No 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document return shape, and it correctly spends its words on what the tool returns at a high level and which sibling to use for discovery instead.

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 schema already explains that path must come from a directory child with is_store true. The description reinforces the provenance ('by directory path') without contradicting or extending the schema.

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 and resource ('Fetch one Raising Cane's store profile'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (address, phone, coordinates, hours, amenities, services). An agent can distinguish it from raisingcanes_directory, raisingcanes_nearby, and raisingcanes_menu 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?

Explicitly names the sibling tools and when to prefer them: 'Use raisingcanes_directory or raisingcanes_nearby to find stores, or raisingcanes_menu for menu items.' This routes the agent correctly when it does not already have a store path.

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