Get the store homepage

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it explains the significance of the 'claimed' field, noting it's a prerequisite for serving offers, and clarifies that no claiming/unclaiming tool exists. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them, though it doesn't detail response format or error behavior.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the tool's role, the meaning of its output, and a relevant workaround. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it and what to do with the result. A minor gap is the lack of explicit return type, but the description names 'uri and claimed' which suffices.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional 'account' parameter, including the default behavior (omit to use GOOGLE_MERCHANTS_ACCOUNT_ID) and format. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns the store homepage of an account: uri and claimed'. It identifies the specific resource (store homepage) and the two data points returned. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account or get_shipping_settings.

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 provides implicit usage context by explaining that an unclaimed homepage is a common cause of account-level problems, suggesting when to call this tool for diagnostics. It also gives an explicit alternative for the related mutation (raw_request) and notes that claiming/unclaiming is not exposed as a tool, guiding the agent away from unsupported operations.

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