shopify_check_access

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds substantive context above that bar: the comparison source (src/scope-requirements.ts), the tool:resource naming convention for multi-resource tools, and the default all-stores behavior. It omits failure handling for unknown store names, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core function is front-loaded in the first clause, with the default-behavior note as a short trailing sentence. The parenthetical about src/scope-requirements.ts is slightly implementation-detailed but earns its place by telling the agent where requirements come from.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return content (shop identity, granted scopes, missing scopes, tools that would fail), which is what an agent needs. Annotations cover safety. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on an invalid store string.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does explain that stores is one-or-many and optional (omitting it checks all). However it gives no format guidance (store handle vs domain) or mention of the 50-item cap, so the compensation is partial, matching the baseline-3 expectation for a single low-coverage parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (report shop identity and granted Admin API scopes) and adds a second distinct function (compare against every tool's scope requirement and flag failures). That combination clearly separates it from siblings like shopify_get_shop_info or shopify_list_stores, which just fetch identity.

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 states the operational context clearly (preflight scope validation) and explains that omitting stores checks every configured store, which is genuine usage guidance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over shopify_get_shop_info or shopify_list_stores, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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