ue_store

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses two genuinely useful traits: supermarket/drugstore front pages expose only a subset of shelves, and their item ids are composite long strings (store:item:section:subsection) that must be forwarded unchanged. It omits auth, pagination, and rate-limit behavior, but the operational quirks it does reveal are substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape, then a short notes block; every sentence contributes. The field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists, though the mixture of the field-list and the two notes could be slightly tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately enumerates returned fields, and it flags the store-type-specific search behavior and id handling. For a 2-parameter, fully schema-documented read tool this is close to complete, with only auth/pagination details missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both id and query. The notes add rationale (why query is needed for supermarkets) and downstream handling of ids, but no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource and its contents precisely ('A store's menu: item ids, names, prices, sections, quick-add, sold out'), making clear this is a store-scoped retrieval distinct from the cross-store ue_search. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve/get'), but the store-scoped framing differentiates it from siblings.

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?

It explains how to use the query parameter (supermarkets/convenience/drugstores only expose a few shelves on the front page, so pass query) and what to do with results ('pass them to ue_add unchanged'). However it never states explicitly when to call ue_store versus ue_search or ue_place; the id-parameter text pointing at ue_search is the only routing hint.

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