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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that reads are permitted to any shop member, that acceptance/opt-out are user actions on page_url (not agent actions), and what domain facts are surfaced. It doesn't cover error behavior or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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 sentences, all substantive: the first front-loads the returned data, the second the permission model, the third where mutations happen. Slightly dense in the first sentence but every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't strictly required, yet the description still enumerates the key fields. Combined with the read-permission note and the pointer to page_url for mutations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge behaviors are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter (shop_id), and the description's 'For one shop' framing makes the scoping semantics unambiguous. No further parameter detail is needed for a single required identifier.

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?

The description names the exact resource (Terms of Service state for a single shop) and enumerates the specific facts returned: current version, owner acceptance, email timestamp, and the section 19 arbitration opt-out window/deadline/status. This is far more specific than siblings like legal_status or legal_documents, letting an agent distinguish them 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?

It states 'Any member of the shop can read it' and explicitly says 'The owner accepts and opts out on the page in page_url,' which tells the agent this is a read-only inspection tool and that mutations are out of scope. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with legal_status or legal_documents, so the routing guidance is implied rather than exhaustive.

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