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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing that the response includes settings and _links to sub-collections, which goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate the returned structure.

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 carry meaningful information: the first describes the action and return contents, the second identifies the exact endpoint. There is no wasted text, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only single-resource tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is largely complete. It states what is returned (store resource, settings, _links) and the endpoint; a brief note on possible failure behavior or absent fields would be the only minor improvement.

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 coverage for the single required parameter is 100%, with the store_id description pointing to foxy_get_default_store as the source. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics, but the schema already handles it fully, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a single resource ('a single store resource by id'), and what is included ('settings and _links to sub-collections'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list and update tools, and the hAPI endpoint reinforces the exact REST operation.

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 clearly implies this tool is for fetching a specific store by ID when you already have that identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'by id' scope and sibling context make the usage situation reasonably clear.

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