get_shop_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get information'), which implies safety, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned (e.g., shop details, status). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently specifies the parameter context. Every part earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns shop information. It doesn't explain what 'information' includes (e.g., shop stats, policies), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a read operation with no structured support, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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%, with the parameter 'shop_name' documented as 'The name/slug of the shop'. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'shop name' but doesn't clarify semantics like format, case sensitivity, or examples. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra insight is provided.

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 action ('Get information') and target resource ('an Etsy shop by its shop name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_shops' or 'get_shop_listings', which prevents a perfect score, but the verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_shops' or 'get_shop_listings'. It mentions the parameter ('shop name') but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing an exact shop name versus partial matching, or when other tools might be more appropriate for broader queries.

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