store_list_shipping_zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination defaults, response format, or any side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also provides zero value beyond the bare action, so it fails to add meaningful transparency.

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 at three words, which is not verbose. However, it is overly terse and fails to front-load any useful information beyond the action. It is minimally sized but at the cost of omitting critical usage and differentiation details. It earns a middle score because conciseness is appropriate, but structure lacks informative value.

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 tool's simple nature and fully documented schema, the description should provide context on pagination, default location behavior, and when to use this list function versus alternatives like store_get_shipping_zones. It provides none of that. The absence of an output schema further increases the need for descriptive context, but the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly decide and invoke this tool.

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%, with all five parameters (altId, limit, offset, altType, withShippingRate) having clear descriptions. The tool description does not mention or elaborate on any parameters, but the baseline is 3 when schema fully documents them. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (List) and resource (Shipping Zones), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It is unambiguous about the core function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'store_get_shipping_zones', which likely performs a similar retrieval. Thus it loses a point for lacking sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states 'List Shipping Zones' without any context on selection criteria, such as whether to use this for paginated results or when the store_get_shipping_zones tool would be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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