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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does real work: it reveals authentication requirements (API key via Bearer header or api_key argument), the prerequisite of a connected store, and the internal nature of the audit using real catalog, performance, and analytics data. It does not discuss side effects, but the 'Get ... audit' phrasing implies a read-only operation and the auth mechanics are transparently documented.

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?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key differentiator and authentication details. Each sentence earns its place, though the phrase 'far beyond what crawling a URL can see' is slightly promotional and overlaps with the more concrete 'Takes no url' statement. Overall it remains well-structured and scannable.

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 an audit tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what the audit covers, the prerequisite connected store, the API key requirement, and the accepted authentication methods. It does not explain the response format or error behavior, but the request itself is fully specified and an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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?

The single optional api_key parameter is already well documented in the schema, including the inxy_sk_ prefix and the Bearer-header alternative. The description adds the key's source ('free at inxy.ai → Settings') and reinforces the two ways to pass it, but this is marginal value beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the user's OWN connected Shopify store audit' and identifies it as a deep 12-category in-app report. It distinguishes the tool from URL-crawl-based audits by saying it goes 'far beyond what crawling a URL can see' and explicitly 'Takes no url.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from siblings like full_seo_audit.

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 description provides clear context for when to use it: for the caller's own connected Shopify store, not a public URL, and only with an Inxy API key and connected store. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use condition, but the prerequisites and 'Takes no url' caveat effectively tell an agent when this tool is appropriate.

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