mc_listStores

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

No annotations exist, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists stores, with no mention of pagination behavior, default ordering, or side effects. The schema does cover count/offset, but the description adds no value beyond that.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded. It avoids fluff but may be too brief. Still, it earns its place without wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could include more context about what constitutes a 'store' in this e-commerce system, especially for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 coverage is 100%—both count and offset have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond these schema descriptions, so 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 'List e-commerce stores' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (stores). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like mc_getStore and other list tools. However, it lacks any additional context about the scope or purpose of the store listing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many list and get operations, but the description does not indicate any context or prerequisites for using listStores.

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