skims_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the fallback mechanism (from vanity domain to `*.myshopify.com` to embedded page data), which is valuable behavioral context beyond what structure reveals. It also explains the credential-free nature of the data source. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'metadata' and 'credential-free'), and it doesn't describe the return envelope format or failure modes beyond the fallback chain.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose first, then scoping details, then fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place — one for what it does, one for why it's different, one for edge-case behavior.

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 tool, this is nearly complete. It covers purpose, source, and robustness/fallback behavior. The main gap is not describing the output shape (no output schema exists, so the agent can't know what fields to expect), and it doesn't state what happens if all fallback paths fail. But given the tool's simplicity, these are minor gaps.

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 zero parameters and the description explains why no `url` parameter is accepted — the URL is fixed server-side. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description actually adds meaningful context by explaining the absence of parameters rather than leaving the agent to wonder. It also describes what data source the metadata comes from.

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 SKIMS store metadata from credential-free storefront JSON, with the specific brand URL pinned server-side. It immediately distinguishes itself from generic Shopify store tools by explaining it is a brand-pinned wrapper, which is a specific verb+resource combination.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: it mentions this is a brand-pinned wrapper around the generic Shopify store family, and it explains why no `url` parameter is accepted. It also describes fallback behavior when the vanity domain blocks `/products.json`, giving clear context for when the tool adapts its behavior. This effectively routes the agent to use this tool for SKIMS-specific metadata rather than generic Shopify tools.

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