get_store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read (get) and lists returned fields, but does not reveal any safety profile, error behaviors, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Important context for an agent is missing.

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: the first states the core action, the second enumerates key return fields. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no superfluous information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values by listing several specific data points (traffic, product count, platform, etc.). It covers the core purpose and parameter usage. However, it omits error handling context and prerequisites (e.g., whether the store must exist in the database). For a simple single-parameter tool, it is largely complete but has 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described 'domain' parameter including examples and format instructions. The description restates that lookup is 'by its domain' but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 by the scoring rule.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full profile for a single e-commerce store by its domain'. It lists specific return fields (traffic stats, product count, platform, social links, business model flags), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_store_traffic or get_store_products that only provide subsets of this data. This makes the tool's unique purpose immediately clear.

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 implies usage when the full store profile is needed by domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like search_stores (for listing stores) or get_store_traffic (for just traffic data). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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