store_get_shipping_carriers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., error behavior, return format, or auth requirements). It is consistent with annotations and contributes no additional value, warranting a baseline score.

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 extremely concise, a single phrase with no redundant words. It is appropriately short for a simple get operation, though it lacks any explanatory structure beyond the core statement.

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 and that schema covers all parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention that it retrieves a single carrier by ID (though inferred from the required parameter), nor does it indicate the return value shape (no output schema). The lack of distinction from the listing tool leaves some contextual gaps.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, with descriptions for altId, altType, and shippingCarrierId. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or clarify parameter relationships, so it meets the baseline for schema-documented parameters.

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 'Get Shipping Carrier' provides a clear verb and resource, indicating retrieval of a shipping carrier. However, it is terse and does not clarify that it is by ID or distinguish from the sibling 'store_list_shipping_carriers'. The name uses plural 'carriers' while the description is singular, causing slight ambiguity, but overall the purpose is understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as store_list_shipping_carriers or store_get_shipping_rates. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints given in the description, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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