wb_list_shops

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the output fields and that it concerns registered shops, which is useful, but it does not mention authentication requirements, whether the result is limited by the current token's permissions, or whether inactive shops are included. For a simple no-parameter list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core resource and output fields are front-loaded, and the cross-tool guidance about shop_id is placed at the end without redundancy.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns and how those return values should be used elsewhere. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The schema is empty and fully covered, so there is no gap to compensate for. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this earns a 4.

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 identifies the resource (registered WB shops) and the returned fields (shop_id + name). It is distinguishable from the large sibling set because it is the only tool explicitly about enumerating shops, though it does not name a differentiating sibling.

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 gives practical usage guidance: 'Use shop_id in all other tools,' which tells the agent this tool is the correct way to obtain shop identifiers for subsequent calls. It does not discuss exclusions or alternatives, but none are necessary given the tool's unique role.

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