Shop info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: this tool handles authentication/login and reports whether write tools are enabled, which an agent needs to know before attempting mutations.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The two key checks, shop connection and write-tool enablement, are stated directly.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it identifies the authentication step and the two facts it confirms. It does not describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and the core purpose is still clear.

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 are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and no additional parameter detail is needed.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: it says the tool logs in and confirms which shop the server is connected to and whether write tools are enabled. This clearly separates it from sibling data-retrieval tools like shoptet_get_product and shoptet_list_orders, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

The description implies a setup or verification use case by saying to log in and confirm shop connection and write-tool status. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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