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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the onboarding-flow positioning but says nothing about idempotency, required pre-existing state, or what registration produces.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the flow context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 create tool with three nested object parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It leaves unclear how config/location are consumed and what a successful registration returns, which matters more given the nested payloads.

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 name, config, location, and description, and the description adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies 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 ('Register a new Shop Kernel') and disambiguates the non-obvious term by equating a kernel with a 'physical site'. It clearly differs from the read siblings (get_kernel, list_kernels), though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Places the tool in a workflow context ('Step 2 in the onboarding flow'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it gives no prerequisites, no ordering details, and no statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling handles follow-up steps.

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