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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no pagination behavior, no statement on whether archived records are returned by default, no permission requirements. It only says what entity is being returned, which is the bare minimum.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise; the sentence is front-loaded with the dual scoping idea, which is the useful part.

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 five-parameter listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition does not give an agent enough to call it correctly — pagination defaults, the meaning of omitted ids, and archive behavior are all missing.

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% across five parameters, and the description only vaguely gestures at two of them (the shop-vs-customer scoping). limit, cursor, and include_archived — including the archived/hidden-record question — are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 fragment identifies the resource (service addresses / shop properties) and implicitly conveys listing by naming two scoping modes, so an agent can infer 'list properties'. However, there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from siblings like properties_add or properties_update; the reader must lean on the tool name plus the schema's optional shop_id/customer_id to reconstruct the purpose.

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?

'Of a customer, or every property of a shop' hints that the mode depends on which id you supply, which is a weak implied usage signal. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about calling with neither id (both are optional), and no mention of how this relates to properties_add/properties_update.

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