get_merchant_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it discloses the required permission (MERCHANT_R) and guarantees that banking/account fields are never returned. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies the tool's data access boundaries.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a key exclusion and a requirement. No wasted words.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description sufficiently covers scope, exclusions, and auth requirements. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning (none needed).

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 tool 'Return the merchant's POS configuration' and enumerates specific fields (currency, tips, stock tracking, closeout, locale, support contacts). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding banking/account fields, which differentiates it from potentially similar tools like get_merchant_info.

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 useful context (returns POS configuration, never banking fields, requires MERCHANT_R) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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