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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses ownership assignment, the legal-acceptance prerequisite, refusal behavior, and the agent limitation. It still omits details such as idempotency, side effects after creation, and the response shape.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and ownership result, then moves to prerequisites and sign-up details. It is clear and appropriately sized, though the refusal sentence slightly repeats the preceding precondition.

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?

It covers the important legal and sign-up context for creating a shop, which is valuable for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. However, it does not explain the required name and jurisdiction parameters or what the caller receives after creation.

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 only 33%, and the description adds rich meaning only for accept_terms_version, including what is recorded with it. The required parameters name and jurisdiction are left undocumented in both the description and schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a shop,' and adds that the caller becomes its owner. It does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings such as shops_signUp, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear preconditions: the caller must already have accepted the current Terms and Privacy on the sign-in page, otherwise the call is refused. It also states that an agent cannot agree to shop terms for the person, but it does not name an alternative tool or compare against shops_signUp.

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