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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behavior: owner-only authorization, specific blocking conditions, and that warnings explain what closing does. It does not explicitly label the operation as read-only, but the check framing and output schema make that clear enough.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, and the key scoping and blocker information is front-loaded. Every clause contributes to understanding the check.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an available output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: owner-only access, what blocks closing, and the warning behavior. It is not fully complete because it says nothing about the shop_id parameter, but overall it is adequate.

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 input schema has one required parameter at 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention shop_id at all. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific check: whether the shop can close now, with an owner-only scope. It clearly distinguishes this preflight check from sibling tools such as shops_create, shops_transferCancel, and shops_export, though the wording is more predicate than verb.

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?

The description implies this is a pre-close check by listing blockers that must be cleared first. However, it never explicitly says when to call it or names an alternative tool, leaving some usage context inferred rather than stated.

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