get_retailers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It implies a read-only list but says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, whether the retailer parameter narrows results, or any auth requirements.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding and the resource front-loaded. The dual phrasing 'retailer integrations / branded onboarding partners' adds slight ambiguity rather than value, but the sentence is otherwise efficient.

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 simple one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not clarify what a retailer record contains or how the parameter affects the result, so an agent lacks enough detail to call it confidently.

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 0% for the single 'retailer' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains whether 'retailer' is a filter, an identifier, or a name, leaving the agent to guess its semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List registered retailer integrations / branded onboarding partners.' An agent can tell this returns a collection of retailer/partner registrations. It lacks differentiation from siblings, though no sibling tool covers the same resource, so the ambiguity is low.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or authentication context, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the resource name.

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