channel_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully mentions quota costs (1 unit for basic call, +1 for certain parameters), which is valuable operational context. However, it doesn't address other important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like.

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 appropriately concise with just two sentences that communicate essential information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides important quota information. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal front-loading.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides some important context (quota costs) but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide complete behavioral guidance. For a tool with this complexity and no structured metadata, the description should do more to compensate.

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% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get store product listing and channel details' which specifies both the action (get) and resources (store product listing, channel details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'channel_home' or 'channel_details' (if they exist), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. While it mentions quota costs, it doesn't explain when this specific tool is appropriate compared to other channel-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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