elid_list_shopsList shops covered by the wine price search, showing observation counts and the oldest and newest observation dates to assess data coverage.
List the shops covered by elid_search_shop_prices, with observation counts and the oldest/newest observation dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the data returned (observation counts, oldest/newest dates), which is beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation and provides enough behavioral context for an agent to understand what to expect.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately specifies the return data. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding. This is an exemplar of concise, well-structured tool documentation.
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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and the tool is a straightforward list operation, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns and its relationship to a sibling tool. While it does not mention pagination or ordering, these are not critical for a simple listing tool, and the description covers all essential information an agent needs to decide when to call it.
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 has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add about parameters. The schema is empty (100% coverage trivially), and the description correctly omits any parameter details. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for anything.
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 verb ('List') and the resource ('shops'), and specifies the scope ('covered by elid_search_shop_prices'), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like wine search or matching tools. The addition of what is included (observation counts, date ranges) further clarifies the exact output, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 usage context by linking to elid_search_shop_prices, suggesting that this tool is meant to be used when one needs to know the available shops for price queries. While it does not explicitly state 'use this when' or exclude alternatives, the reference to the sibling tool provides strong implicit guidance. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.