Review Shopify Store Locations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds the scoping of 'selected stores or full portfolio', which is useful. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., a table of locations with statuses) or any pagination or volume limits. Since annotations cover the safety profile well, this is acceptable but could add more.

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 sentence with moderate length, front-loaded with the key action 'Review' and the resource 'locations'. It lists the multiple dimensions efficiently without verbose detail. It's concise and structured reasonably, though it could be slightly more scannable with a bullet list, but it's fine.

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 read-only review tool with a single optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what it does, the dimensions covered, and the scoping (selected or full portfolio). It lacks a note on output format or typical use cases, but given the simplicity and annotations, it's solid. The sibling tools provide context, and the description adequately distinguishes it.

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%: the only parameter, 'stores', is described as 'Stores to include. Omit this field to include every configured store.' The description also mentions 'selected stores or the full portfolio', which aligns. The description adds no additional detail beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, 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 clearly states the tool reviews location status across multiple dimensions (active, inactive, legacy, fulfillment, inventory, and address status) for selected stores or the full portfolio. It distinguishes this from siblings like shopify_list_stores (which lists stores) and shopify_get_shop_info (which gets shop info). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential inventory-focused siblings like shopify_compare_inventory or shopify_low_stock_report, though the focus on locations helps.

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 says 'across selected stores or the full portfolio', giving a clear sense of when to use it: to review location status across stores. It implies it covers a broad portfolio-wide review of locations, which could be distinguished from more specific reports. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for specific location sub-queries (like inventory status might be better handled by shopify_compare_inventory).

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