List DNS stores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and the session-city default behavior, but does not disclose response shape or the effects of rich/compact options. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not especially rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The resource and endpoint are front-loaded, and the default behavior is stated efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple read-only list tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key facts: what is returned, the endpoint, and the default city behavior. Minor gaps remain around the response payload and behavior when no session city is set, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 coverage is high (75%), and the description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by stating that city can be a name or slug and that omitting it defaults to the session city. The limit parameter lacks schema description, but its default is captured in the 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('physical stores') and an explicit endpoint ('/shops/{city}/'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on products, search, or location management.

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 clearly explains how to call the tool: pass a city name or slug, or omit it to default to the session city. It gives clear invocation context, though it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare it to sibling alternatives.

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