store_infoStore policies and basics: where checkout happens, and links to the shipping, returns/refund, terms, and privacy pages. Use for "do you ship to X", "what is your return policy", or "how do I pay".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| store | Yes | ||
| checkout | Yes | ||
| policies | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that the tool returns links to policy pages and checkout basics, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 brief and front-loaded, immediately stating what the tool provides, then giving concrete usage examples. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only information tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. It states the content scope, the specific links covered, and representative use cases, leaving no gap an agent needs to resolve elsewhere.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no additional explanation. The description's examples clarify the kind of natural-language query the tool is meant to serve, which is helpful context even though no parameter semantics are needed.
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 clearly identifies this as the store policy and basics tool, naming checkout location and links to shipping, returns/refund, terms, and privacy pages. The 'Use for' examples make its scope unmistakable and distinguish it from the product/article/search siblings.
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 explicitly lists representative queries like 'do you ship to X', 'what is your return policy', and 'how do I pay', giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the examples are specific enough to route an agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are scoped to either products or articles, but there are overlapping pairs: check_inventory and get_product both return price and variant stock, and fetch and get_article both retrieve full-text content. search, search_products, and search_articles also share similar search intent, though their descriptions help clarify scope.
The set mixes verb+noun tools like list_products, get_article, and search_products with bare verbs like fetch and search, and noun-phrase tools like best_sellers, popular_content, related_products, and store_info. The naming is readable and partially patterned, but not consistently structured.
15 tools is at the upper end of the typical range, covering both a storefront and a publication plus sitewide search. The count is reasonable for the combined scope, though a few tools like check_inventory and get_product overlap enough that the set could be slightly tighter.
The gateway covers catalog browsing, product search, inventory, cart building, store policies, article search/retrieval, recent content, popular content, and general site search. Minor gaps include no paged listing of all articles beyond recent and no direct category-filtered product listing, but core workflows are well supported.