Shop profile

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only lookup, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add a genuine disclosure not present in structured fields: 'Contact details are left out,' telling the agent to expect a redacted view of the profile. It doesn't mention rate limits or whether the record can be missing, which keeps it below the top score.

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 content of the profile comes first and the usage instruction second, which is the right front-loading for a lookup tool.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is complete enough to call correctly. Since no output schema exists, the field enumeration stands in for a return-value description, though it doesn't indicate structure or absence behavior.

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 100% and the shop_id property already documents its range and origin, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces the tb_sellers linkage but adds no syntax or format details beyond that.

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?

Names the resource precisely and enumerates the profile contents (score and votes, e-Namad seal, time on Torob, city, website, delivery and payment terms), which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the list-oriented siblings like tb_sellers and tb_stores.

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 clause 'Use to vet a seller from tb_sellers' supplies both the use case (seller vetting) and the workflow dependency (obtain shop_id from tb_sellers first). It stops short of excluding alternatives such as tb_stores or tb_find_shops, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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