Shipping, returns and store rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that answers come from the official FAQ and that delivery answers carry the courier/fee breakdown and FreeShipping badge logic, which is useful content context, but it does not mention e.g. result length limits or staleness beyond what the schema already notes.

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?

Front-loads the resource and reserves the second paragraph for the when-to-use cases and the cost formula, which earns its place. Slightly weakened by the hard line-break mid-sentence and dense formula, but overall tight and purposeful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, trigger questions and the cost-computation usage. It is essentially complete for a two-parameter FAQ lookup; only minor behavioral detail (result size/staleness) is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents both the free-text query and the topic enum with its default. The description adds only marginal meaning (that delivery answers distinguish Tehran/Alborz courier from provincial post and can be zero with a FreeShipping badge), which is baseline-adequate but not compensating for any gap.

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?

States a specific resource (Khanoumi's order rules: shipping, returns, payment, refunds, guarantee, pink-box) drawn from the official FAQ. An agent can immediately distinguish this from product/search siblings like kh_product or kh_search, which return item data rather than policy answers.

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?

Explicitly enumerates triggering questions ("how much is shipping", "can I return it", "how do I pay") and a concrete use case (computing true order cost from delivery answers). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or routing to a specific sibling, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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