store_get_shipping_zones

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention response format, whether shipping rates are included by default, or any side-effect-free nature beyond the annotations. The description is essentially empty of 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?

It is concise (one sentence) but not effectively structured—it provides no front-loaded critical information. While brevity is positive, the content is so minimal that it fails to offer helpful guidance. A good concise description would still highlight key distinctions or required parameters.

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 get-by-ID tool with siblings that list or fetch available zones, the description lacks context about its specific use case. It doesn't explain that it returns a single zone object, nor does it clarify the role of optional parameters like withShippingRate. The richness of the schema and annotations are not leveraged, leaving the description incomplete.

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 is 100% and each parameter (altId, altType, shippingZoneId, withShippingRate) has a clear description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but since the schema fully documents them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—no extra compensation is needed.

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?

Description 'Get Shipping Zone' is a clear verb+resource but is essentially a tautology of the tool name, adding no distinguishing details about whether it returns a single zone, multiple zones, or what filtering applies. It does not differentiate from siblings like store_list_shipping_zones or store_get_available_shipping_zones, so it fails to convey the specific retrieval-by-ID scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it fetches a specific zone by ID, nor does it reference sibling tools or any conditions (e.g., when to use list vs get). An agent would have to inspect the schema to infer its purpose.

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