get_storefront

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: read-only, no quota, no charge, and an explicit negative guarantee that it 'does not grant, buy, or cancel anything.' It also discloses that the returned state mirrors dxpert.ai's own store rendering, so the agent knows the fidelity of the data.

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 with the what, then the when, then the boundary — a sound ordering. It runs slightly long: the 'read-only, no quota, no charge' clause and the closing 'it does not grant, buy, or cancel anything' restate the same non-mutation guarantee twice.

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 must describe the return values, and it does by naming each returned field and enumerating the possible states for each. Combined with the usage triggers and the read-only guarantee, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 schema is an empty object with additionalProperties false. Baseline 4 applies, with no param-level detail needed or missing.

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 ('Read this account's plan and what it may buy right now') and enumerates exactly which states are returned: plan tier, dxpert Pro state, DX Roadmap purchase state, and Try Pro runs remaining. It also names the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows precisely what domain this covers versus siblings like start_purchase or ask_dxpert.

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?

Gives two explicit triggers: call it before proposing a purchase, and when the user asks what they are currently paying for. It also routes the agent elsewhere for a different need ('For plan contents and live prices read GET {api_base}/api/catalog; do not quote prices from memory'), which is exactly the when-not/alternative guidance that prevents misuse.

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