list_supported_stores

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List all' does convey a read-only, non-mutating operation and hints that both built-in and user-added entries are included, but nothing is said about ordering, pagination, or whether user-added entries are flagged differently in the result.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, this covers what the tool does and what it enumerates. The only meaningful gap is the shape of the returned entries, which is modest given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of built-in vs user-added implicitly signals the scope of what the returned set contains.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('supported ... e-commerce stores') and delineates scope by naming two categories, built-in and user-added. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like add_store_adapter, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description suggests this is a discovery/inventory call, but it never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as list_flight_providers or when to use add_store_adapter to extend the list. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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