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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context by naming the exact fact domains returned, including 'how ordering through this server works,' though it does not discuss response shape or limitations.

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, front-loaded with the core return value, followed by a compact usage-routing clause. The enumerated categories are efficient and every clause serves selection or usage.

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 structure need not be described here. Annotations cover the safety profile, the sole parameter is fully documented in schema, and the description enumerates coverage and sibling routing, leaving no critical gap for an agent.

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 single 'language' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including enum values and the Dutch default. The description does not add anything beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

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 ('Returns NEVINI store facts') and enumerates the exact fact categories covered: contact details, pickup, shipping, returns, payment, policy URLs, and ordering mechanics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the wine-search sibling with 'for wines use search_wines.'

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('questions about delivery, pickup, returns, payment or contact') and names the alternative tool and domain for wine queries ('for wines use search_wines'). No ambiguity remains about which sibling to invoke.

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