fanaticslive_shop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool uses public data from Fanatics Live's own GraphQL API, implying a read-only nature. However, it does not disclose what happens if the shop slug is invalid, whether the data is live or cached, or if any rate limits apply. The API source adds credibility but not full 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and the second lists the exact data returned, all front-loaded. The mention of the API source is brief and informative, not padded.

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 read operation with one parameter, the description covers the purpose, data fields, and data source. Since there is no output schema, the description helps the agent know what to expect. It doesn't explain error scenarios or pagination, but for a profile fetcher this is not a major gap.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'slug', providing a clear example of where to get it (e.g., from a shops-list result). The description reinforces this by referring to 'Fanatics Live shop slug', adding context that the slug is a unique identifier. Since there is only one parameter and it's well documented, the description adds minimal but useful context.

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 retrieves a Fanatics Live shop's public profile, listing specific data points (description, social links, follower count, channels, staffers). The verb 'Get' and resource 'shop's public profile' are unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling 'fanaticslive_show' by focusing on the shop profile, not a specific show.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool name and description make it clear it's for shop profiles, and the sibling 'fanaticslive_shop_shows' implies usage for other contexts. No exclusions or explicit alternatives are given, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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