get_store_tech

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the action (get) and the return type (a list of technologies with categories). This gives enough behavioral context for a read operation. There is no mention of any other side effects, but for a simple query tool, this is sufficient. A 4 is appropriate because it is transparent about what it does and returns.

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 consists of two sentences that are perfectly front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second elaborates on the output. Every word earns its place with no fluff. This is an excellent example of concise documentation.

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 that the tool has a simple interface (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly. It explains both input and output. A higher score would require returning values documented, but since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned.

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 description coverage is 100% (the 'domain' parameter is described in the schema). The description adds context about what the parameter is used for (the store domain) but not beyond the schema's own 'description' field. Since the schema already handles the parameter documentation, the description adds minimal extra value, scoring a baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('the technology stack used by a store'), and further specifies the output ('a list of technologies with their categories'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_store, get_store_products, and get_store_traffic, which all target different resources.

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 context by focusing on store technology stack, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., it doesn't say 'Use this to analyze store tech, not to get store details'). It provides no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, so it gets a 4 for being clear but not providing alternative guidance.

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