List store connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the domain semantics: 'valid false means reconnect it in Pirate Ship' and the presence of an auto-sync flag. That tells the agent how to interpret the payload rather than just that the call is safe — a genuine addition beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by the field-level detail, with no filler or restatement of the title. The platform enumeration ('Shopify, Etsy, eBay, WooCommerce, Squarespace and others') is mildly expendable but serves to set the open-world expectation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully covers the returned fields and the one non-obvious value ('valid false'). Pagination, ordering, and behaviour with zero connected stores are unaddressed, but for a simple no-arg list this is close to sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description spends its words on the result shape instead, which is the right allocation for a no-argument tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stores and marketplaces connected to Pirate Ship for order import') and immediately characterizes the returned entity set (name, platform, active/authorised, auto-sync). An agent can distinguish this read-only enumeration from mutation siblings like sync_store_orders or create_batch without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly bounds scope with 'Connecting a store happens in Pirate Ship, not here', which pre-empts an agent trying to add a connection through this tool. It does not name the natural follow-up sibling (sync_store_orders) for triggering an import, so the when-to-use guidance is clear but not fully routed.

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