Review Shopify Store Locations

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing exactly which kinds of location status are reviewed, giving the agent a concrete sense of what the operation surfaces.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource before listing the status dimensions. Every element contributes to clarifying scope and behavior, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only reporting tool with one optional parameter, the description, combined with the annotations, gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It could be even more explicit about the return shape, but the enumerated status categories largely compensate for the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter, 'stores', including its alias format and the omit-to-include-all behavior. The description's phrase 'selected stores or the full portfolio' merely echoes the schema, adding no meaningful new semantic value.

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 a specific resource ('locations') and a clear action ('Review'), and enumerates the relevant status dimensions (active, inactive, legacy, fulfillment, inventory, address) and scope (selected stores or full portfolio). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which target store locations specifically.

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 conveys when the tool is appropriate: for reviewing location status across chosen stores or the whole portfolio. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for location-level status review.

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