Get HTML codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that these are Appearance-editor configuration values and that omission returns all fields, but says nothing about output shape, size of returned HTML blobs, or any permission requirements — reasonable but modest added value.

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?

Two compact clauses: scope first, then the omission default. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the most actionable detail (field names) is front-loaded.

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-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description could have indicated the return shape (e.g. a map of field name to HTML string) and noted that values may be large. That gap is the main remaining shortfall.

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 0% and the schema gives only a pattern '^[A-Za-z]+$' with no enum, so the description carries the load — and it does, by listing the accepted field identifiers and defining the omission default. It stops short of saying whether values are case-sensitive or what the pattern enforces, so it doesn't fully close the gap.

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 names a specific resource and locates it precisely ('Custom HTML code fields from Appearance → Editor → HTML code'), and enumerates the concrete fields (header, footer, orderFinale, robotsFile, llmsFile). The verb is only implied by the tool name, but the resource scope is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the product/order/banner siblings.

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?

'Omit field to get all' is a genuine usage hint about how to call it in bulk vs. single mode. There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus other shop-configuration tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. admin scope, that these codes are shop-wide settings).

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