gymshark_store

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data source (credential-free storefront JSON), the server-side fixed URL, the absence of a `url` parameter, and a detailed fallback chain if `/products.json` is blocked, including fallback to a `*.myshopify.com` domain or embedded page data. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it stops short of describing failure modes when all fallbacks fail.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the brand-pinned wrapper and parameter constraint, and the third details fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is 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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, the data source, the fixed URL, and fallback behavior. No output schema exists, but 'normalized storefront metadata' is a sufficient description of the return value for safe invocation. The agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call it.

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 is empty with zero parameters, but the description goes beyond the schema by explicitly stating that no `url` parameter is accepted and explaining why the endpoint is a fixed brand-pinned wrapper. This prevents an agent from attempting to pass a URL and clarifies the parameterless contract. The baseline for zero parameters is high, and the description exceeds it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get Gymshark store metadata.' It further clarifies by saying it returns 'normalized storefront metadata' for a fixed Gymshark URL, and explicitly contrasts itself with the generic Shopify store family. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like gymshark_products or gymshark_sitemaps.

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 clearly frames when to use this endpoint: it is a brand-pinned wrapper for Gymshark only, with the URL fixed server-side, so no `url` parameter is accepted. This implicitly warns against using a generic Shopify store tool for Gymshark. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like gymshark_products for product-level needs, but the usage context is clear.

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