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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is additive — and it delivers by disclosing the default sort order and defining the donation-rate field, which the agent wouldn't otherwise know. It stops short of noting result-volume/pagination behavior tied to `limit`.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: resource, scope, sort order, and field meaning packed into one clause each. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, annotations present, and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it: what it lists, in what order, and what the donation rate means. A brief note on how `query` interacts with ranking (does filtering preserve the donation-rate sort?) would close the remaining gap.

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%: both `limit` (default 50, max 200) and `query` (store name or category) are documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List partner stores on hangel Market'), plus the ordering ('highest first') and the meaning of the key returned field ('donation rate — % of each purchase donated'). Sibling tools cover clearly different resources (events, funds, volunteering, NGOs, products), so an agent can route to this one without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the resource name — browse partner stores with their donation rates — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to an alternative (e.g., using `search` for keyword lookups instead of browsing). The 'highest first' note hints at a ranking/browse use case but is not framed as guidance.

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