rothys_store

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses the credential-free source, the fixed server-side URL, the fact that no `url` parameter is accepted, and a detailed fallback chain (vanity domain, `/products.json` block, public `*.myshopify.com`, embedded page data). This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure that goes well beyond generic phrasing.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the source, the wrapper relationship, and fallback behavior. Every sentence carries distinct, necessary information; the fallback details are dense but not verbose. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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, fixed-store tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: purpose, source, parameter absence, and fallback behavior. The main gap is that 'storefront metadata' is not further specified, so an agent cannot predict exactly what fields will come back. Still, this is a minor omission for a simple pinned wrapper.

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 is empty, so the baseline is 4, but the description adds meaning by explaining why there are no parameters: the URL is pinned server-side and no `url` parameter is accepted. This directly informs the agent that no input is needed and why, which is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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 Rothy's store metadata.' It then clarifies it returns 'normalized storefront metadata' for a concrete URL, and explicitly positions itself as a 'brand-pinned wrapper around the generic Shopify store family,' which distinguishes it from sibling store tools. This is far beyond a tautological restatement.

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 by stating the tool is brand-pinned to Rothy's and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, so the agent knows this is the Rothy's-specific entry point versus the generic Shopify store family. It does not explicitly name alternatives like shopify_store or allbirds_store, nor state when not to use it, but the wrapper framing makes the usage context unambiguous.

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