mailchimp_stores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes each action's output scope and the store_id requirement, which is critical for correct invocation. While it doesn't mention pagination behavior, the schema covers count/offset, and all actions are clearly reads with no side effects.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences capture the overall purpose, the entry-point advice, and the action-specific details with zero filler. The structure effectively guides the user from high-level context to specific invocation.

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 multi-action tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies every action and its requirements. It covers the essential context (store aggregation, store_id as entry point) and leaves pagination details to the schema, which is well-documented.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining the action enum options and the dependency of store_id on the 'details' action. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, clarifying how parameters combine.

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?

Clearly states the tool's domain (connected e-commerce stores) and enumerates three specific actions (list, details, all_orders), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing cross-store aggregation ('orders across every store') and positioning itself as the entry point for store IDs.

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?

Provides the guidance 'Start here for a store_id', indicating this tool is the recommended first step for store-related operations. It also clarifies when to use each action, including the prerequisite of store_id for details. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative sibling tools like mailchimp_orders, relying on the cross-store scope to implicitly differentiate.

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