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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the 'READ-ONLY' opening is reinforcement rather than new information. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the exact record shape returned and the empty-state handling, which is the failure mode an agent will most often hit. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only constraint and the field list, then the call-first rule, then the fallback. Nothing is repeated and each sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers the empty-connection branch that an agent would otherwise have to guess at. For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with full annotation coverage, this is complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to document. The description usefully notes that the store_id this call returns is the input other woo_* tools require, which ties the empty parameter list to downstream tool calls.

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 and resource (list connected WooCommerce stores) and immediately scopes it to the Vendooly organization. The parenthetical enumerates the actual returned fields (store_id, URL, status, last sync, last webhook, last error), which distinguishes it from every other woo_* sibling that operates on a single store's data.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call it first: every other woo_* tool needs store_id', giving an ordering rule that no sibling name alone could convey. It also gives a when-not path: if no stores are connected, direct the user to Settings → Integrations → Connect WooCommerce, which is the only correct fallback.

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