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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the underlying Foxy hAPI endpoint (GET /stores/{store_id}) and by stating the response includes settings and _links, but it says nothing about error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing hAPI endpoint reference is slightly redundant metadata but is compact.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the response contains (settings plus sub-collection links), which compensates for the missing output schema. Only routing relative to the default-store sibling is absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the store_id parameter description already explains its type and how to obtain it. The description only restates 'by id', so baseline 3 is correct – the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('Get a single store resource by id') and even previews the payload ('settings and _links to sub-collections'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling foxy_get_default_store, which an agent could easily confuse for this tool.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferred over foxy_get_default_store, and no prerequisites. The only routing hint ('get it from foxy_get_default_store') lives in the schema's parameter description, not the tool description.

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