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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the storefront is fixed server-side and a valid seed may return zero results, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty response as an error. It stops short of describing return format or pagination, but the output schema carries that.

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?

Three tight sentences, all front-loaded with the core purpose first, then defaults/constraints, then routing. 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary. The description covers scope, defaults, the server-fixed storefront, the empty-result edge case, and sibling routing — everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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 the schema already documents handle, limit, and intent including the default and max values. The description restates those defaults rather than adding new meaning (no format nuances, no semantic distinction between related and complementary). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 recommended Rothy's products for a seed product handle') and adds the intent dimension (related vs complementary). It explicitly differentiates itself from rothys_product (seed details) and shopify_product_recommendations (different storefront), so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Names both alternatives and the exact condition selecting each ('rothys_product for seed-product details', 'shopify_product_recommendations for a different storefront'). It also warns that a valid seed can legitimately yield no recommendations, covering the empty-result case.

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