Boutiques that sell on within

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not need to restate it. The description does add genuinely new context: that the returned domain is the key used to reference a boutique in the other tools, which is real cross-tool behavioral information. It stops short of saying whether the listing is complete or paginated, or what an empty result means.

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-loaded with the resource, then the field list, then usage, then the domain note — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 one fully documented optional parameter, a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The remaining gap is result-set behavior (pagination, exhaustive vs. sampled, empty-result meaning), which matters for a directory listing but is not stated.

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 single city parameter is already documented in the schema, including the useful 'place to shop, not the shopper's own location' clarification. The description only echoes city via 'which of them are in a city' and adds no syntax or matching semantics 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?

States a specific resource (independent luxury boutiques selling on the platform) and enumerates what the listing carries: neighbourhood, city, live item counts, opening hours, pickup vs. delivery. That makes the tool's output shape recognizable at a glance. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-name siblings like boutique_directory or where_to_buy, so an agent still has to reason about which listing tool to pick.

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 sentence 'Use this when someone asks which shops sell on within, or which of them are in a city' gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly ties the city parameter to a filtering use case. What is missing is any exclusion — e.g. when to prefer boutique_directory or boutique_details — so the agent gets positive guidance only.

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