get_store_message_receiver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but "Retrieve" at least establishes a read-only, low-risk operation and "current" implies live state. It says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the call errors or returns defaults when no receiver is configured, or about rate limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant or filler text. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names what is returned but does not characterize the response shape (e.g., what a message receiver is, what fallback routing contains, or what an unconfigured store returns). Adequate but with a clear gap given 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single store_id parameter is fully documented as "The ID or slug of your store." The description adds no additional meaning about accepted formats or resolution behavior, so the schema does all the work — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Retrieve") plus a concrete resource ("message receiver and fallback routing settings for a store"), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly name its obvious counterpart set_store_message_receiver, so sibling differentiation relies on the reader noticing the get/set naming convention.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the read-side companion to set_store_message_receiver rather than being told.

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