Данные магазина

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the shop is fixed by an environment variable, and every response includes GraphQL cost-bucket details with field-level explanations. This gives the agent a clear model of what to expect.

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 front-loaded with the main return value and its fields, then explains input constraints, then covers the shared cost-bucket behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the responsibility of explaining what the response contains, and it does so thoroughly: store name, domain, currency, plan, email, timezone, product count, and locations. It also explains the no-input contract and the cost fields, so an agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and the schema already communicates that perfectly. The description reinforces this with 'Аргументов не принимает' and explains why no shop argument is needed, which is useful context for an agent that might otherwise look for a shop selector parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Возвращает') and names a concrete resource: the shop bound to the server, including its domain, currency, plan, and locations. This clearly distinguishes get_shop from sibling tools like get_product and list_orders, and the no-argument behavior is stated explicitly.

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 explains that the tool takes no arguments and that the shop is determined by SHOPIFY_STORE_DOMAIN, so an agent knows when it can call this tool. It also connects the returned location IDs to set_inventory, giving a concrete downstream use case. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but none are really needed for this tool.

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