get_store_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only lookup through 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not require unusual permissions, or discuss error/availability edge cases. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but not fully transparent.

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 brief and front-loaded, leading with the action and the most critical payload (seller's profile), then listing output fields and input forms. It wastes no words. It could be slimmed by dropping the input-format sentence since the schema already says that, but the example is a helpful convenience.

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?

The tool is low in complexity: one required param, no enums, no output schema. The description compensates for the absence of an output schema by listing what the agent will get. It doesn't mention errors or authentication, but for a straightforward by-key profile fetch, this is close to being complete enough.

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 cover is 100% and the schema description already says exactly what the description says: a short name or URL. The description adds only a small clarifying example like 'e.g. "ysn-store"' which is useful but not fundamental. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries full parameter documentation.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a Toco seller's profile') and enumerates concrete fields returned (display name, city, rating, active product count, official/tier badges, KYC status). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_store_products (products, not profile) and search_stores (search, not profile-by-identifier).

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 implies the tool's niche by noting it takes a short name or full URL, which tells the agent this is the 'by-identifier' lookup rather than search_stores. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over get_store_products or when a search tool would be more appropriate, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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