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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that data comes from the 'live Admin API' and that it reflects the connected store, which is useful but not a rich behavioral disclosure beyond that.

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 first sentence front-loads the core function and output fields, and the second gives a clear use case. The routing line repeats some fields, adding mild redundancy but staying brief.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what the tool returns, the data source, and when to call it, and the schema/annotations cover safety and parameters. It does not describe error behavior when no store is connected, but that is a minor omission.

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 companyId parameter is 100% covered by the schema, including membership requirement and company scoping. The description offers no additional parameter guidance, so it relies on the schema.

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 the operation: fetching the connected Shopify store's profile with specific fields (name, domain, currency, plan, contact email). It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tools, but the resource scope ('store profile') is distinct from order/product/theme tools.

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?

'Use to confirm which store the agents are connected to' gives a concrete use case and context. It does not state exclusions or point to alternatives, so it falls short of the strongest routing guidance.

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