Shop profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the shape of the returned profile (survey percentages, courier city), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or freshness of ratings, so it adds only modest context beyond structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and payload, followed by selection guidance and cross-references. The field enumeration is dense but every item earns its place by helping the agent judge relevance.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and 100% schema description coverage, the description only needs to supply purpose and routing — both are present and unambiguous. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters ('shop' id/username pattern, 'similar_shops' boolean) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the shop identifier semantics or the similar-shops option, so it adds nothing beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a shop's profile') and enumerates the exact contents (rating, buyer survey, followers, product count, categories, courier city, contacts, website), so an agent knows both what it returns and how it differs from sh_product / sh_shops. No ambiguity about scope.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('judge whether a shop is trustworthy before buying, or to see what it sells') plus concrete routing to alternatives with parameter hints: products via sh_browse(shop_id=...) or sh_search(shop_id=...), brands via sh_brands. This is exactly the sibling differentiation an agent needs.

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