printful_list_stores

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by clarifying the return data ('store IDs and names') and the multi-store context, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs beyond the token mention, or pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential details in two additional concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy, resulting in a well-structured and efficient text.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is largely complete. It effectively explains the purpose, usage context, and return data, though it could slightly improve by hinting at the parameter's role or behavioral nuances like error handling.

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%, but the description does not mention the 'format' parameter or its semantics (e.g., output format options like 'markdown' or 'json'). Since the schema fully defines the parameter with a description and enum, and the description adds no parameter details, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 specific action ('List all stores') and resource ('stores available to your API token'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_orders' or 'list_sync_products' by focusing on store entities rather than orders or products. It explicitly mentions the return content ('store IDs and names') and the target audience ('multi-store accounts'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides clear context for usage ('Needed for multi-store accounts'), indicating when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'get_store_stats' for detailed store information, leaving some guidance implicit rather than fully explicit.

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