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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about scope and the returned fields (currency and status), but does not describe pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral detail.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted wording. It conveys the scope and return fields efficiently.

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 simple zero-parameter list operation with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It names the data source and returned fields, though it could mention ordering or whether results are ever paginated if the backend does so.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has no properties. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; no additional 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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('PrestaShop stores connected to this Pridly account'), plus return fields currency and status. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like multi_store_report or store_health_check.

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 implies usage (when you need to see connected stores), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. For a zero-parameter listing tool that may be sufficient, but the agent gets no routing help versus sibling reporting tools.

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