explain_readiness_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Explain' strongly implies a read-only lookup and 'how to fix it' adds useful output expectation, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether anything is mutated on the storefront, or the shape of the response. Partial behavioral disclosure only.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the remediation promise appended. No filler or redundancy anywhere.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys what you get back and why. The only missing piece is how this relates to scan_agent_readiness for agents that do not yet know a signal name.

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 100% and the single 'signal' parameter already documents itself with concrete examples ('aiBotsAllowed', 'llmsTxt', 'mcpManifest', 'ap2Endpoint'). The description adds no format or valid-value guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (explain) and resource (agentic-commerce readiness signal) and adds the remediation angle, so the agent knows it returns both an explanation and a fix. It does not name or contrast itself with the closest sibling, scan_agent_readiness, which is the main differentiation gap.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this to understand a signal I already know about,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to scan_agent_readiness for discovering signals in the first place. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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