shop_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Returns' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential caveats like authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Returns', and includes concrete examples of policy types. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 0-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool returns and the scope of policies. It could mention potential variations (e.g., 'may not include all policies for all regions'), but the 'etc.' covers additional types, making it complete enough.

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, and the input schema is empty. The description implies no inputs are needed, which aligns with the schema. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; there is no parameter information needed beyond this.

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 identifies the resource (shop policies) and lists specific policy types (privacy, terms of service, refund, shipping, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like shop_info and list_products. The verb 'Returns' is specific and matches the resource.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is so direct (retrieving policies) that the usage is implied. There is no mention of when not to use or alternative tools, so it falls at 'implied usage'.

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