shopify_list_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the effect parameter being 'Required and must be read; Spring verifies it' and explains auth/approval identity semantics, but discloses little else about runtime behavior such as pagination or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact one-line-per-parameter list with no fluff. Although the Args section partially duplicates schema property names, that duplication is justified given the schema has zero descriptions. Every line 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?

Purpose, all parameters, safety profile (via annotations), and return shape (via output schema) are covered, making the tool callable. Remaining gaps are minor: no statement about pagination beyond the limit parameter, and no explanation of how project_id versus project_ref versus connector_account_ref resolve. For a read-only list operation this is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full parameter-documentation burden and largely succeeds: all 7 parameters are covered with meaningful roles (limit range 1-50, effect 'must be read', approval_ref 'when resuming a write'). This substantially compensates for the bare schema. A couple of entries like 'Exact project correlation reference' remain terse but still convey purpose.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the Shopify shop's locations', with clarifying examples of what counts as a location (warehouses, retail locations, fulfilment centres). This is precise and tells an agent exactly what the tool returns, easily distinguished from the many other list tools in the sibling set.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The Args section explains parameter mechanics but provides no selection context, such as when to prefer this over shopify_get_shop_info or square_list_locations. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and first sentence.

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