get_store_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is returned, which is essentially the purpose. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or reversibility. For a read-like 'get' operation, the lack of confirmation that it is non-destructive or safe is a gap, though the name suggests read-only. The description adds little beyond the obvious.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists expected fields. There is no unnecessary verbosity or duplication. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple schema (one parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the basic return values. However, it does not address potential ambiguity with sibling tools (e.g., get_store_hours) or how the user might need to use the store_id (e.g., from where it comes). It is adequate for a simple getter but lacks guidance on when to choose it over alternatives.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter store_id. The description compensates by saying 'by store_id', which indicates the parameter is the identifier used to look up the store. However, it does not explain the format, any constraints, or how to obtain a valid store_id. This is a minimal but useful clarification that the schema lacks.

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 clearly states the action (Get) and resource (store details) and lists specific fields (address, opening hours, metro, coordinates). It distinguishes from siblings like get_store_hours by implying a broader set of details, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb and resource are unambiguous, so it clearly communicates what the tool does.

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 siblings. For example, it doesn't mention that get_store_hours may be better if only hours are needed, or that find_store might be used when the ID is unknown. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the description alone, which is insufficient given the variety of similar tools.

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