get_store_info

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

With readOnlyHint=true already signaling a read-only operation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly listing the returned store attributes and stating that 'Secrets are never included.' This clarifies a key safety boundary beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that quickly states the purpose and then enumerates the returned fields. Every phrase contributes value, and 'Secrets are never included' is a valuable addition without padding.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing all returned fields (name, slug, tier, domain, currency, payment processors, allowed domains) and adds the guarantee about secrets. This is sufficiently complete for a simple, read-only getter with no parameters.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is no parameter information to add.

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 opens with 'Get the store bound to this API key,' using a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, slug, tier, domain, etc.), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_settings or get_storefront.

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 clear context that this tool retrieves the store associated with the current API key, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There are sibling tools for settings and storefronts, but the description does not reference them, leaving the choice implicit.

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