Shop profile

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: it discloses that contact details are deliberately omitted and warns that shop-written text is data, not instructions, which is useful for prompt-injection handling. No return format is given, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solid.

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?

Three tight sentences: the resource and its fields are front-loaded, the usage condition follows, and the privacy/injection notes close. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and calling out what is deliberately excluded. Combined with annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema itself, including the tb_sellers source and an example value. The description only restates that the id comes from a tb_sellers row, adding no new syntax or constraint 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 concrete resource (a shop's trust profile) and enumerates exactly what it contains: score and votes, e-Namad seal, time on Torob, city, website, delivery and payment terms. It ties itself to tb_sellers as the source of the id, which implicitly separates it from product/search siblings. It stops short of an explicit verb and doesn't name which siblings it is not, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

It states a clear context for use: 'Use to judge a seller found in tb_sellers (its `shop_id`) before buying,' which tells the agent both when and where the id comes from. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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