store_get_store_settings

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already convey the safe, read-only nature of the operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it gets settings, and does not mention behavior like defaults or side effects. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant content. It is appropriately brief for a simple read operation, though it leaves out supplementary details that could aid usage. The structure is clean and 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 tool with two optional params, no output schema, and a clear read intent, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain what 'Store Settings' encompasses or indicate that altId/altType default to GHL_LOCATION_ID (though the schema covers this). The lack of return-value description is acceptable given the absence of an output schema, but the description could be more helpful in clarifying scope.

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 description coverage is 100% (both altId and altType are described), so the schema already documents the parameters including defaults and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, placing it at the baseline score.

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 Store Settings' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Store Settings), distinguishing it from sibling tools like store_create_store_setting. It is specific enough to infer it retrieves store configuration details, though it does not elaborate on what those settings include.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as store_list_shipping_carriers or store_create_store_setting. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the name.

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