Store Get

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 genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the underlying endpoint (GET /store), the auth requirement ('required scope: any valid token'), and the pinned API version 2025-03.

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 what is returned and why to call it, followed by compact operational metadata lines. No filler, though the HTTP path and API version lines are reference detail rather than task guidance.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields, plus scope and API version. It leaves out only minor details like response shape for domains/social links, which is acceptable for a trivial read.

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 100% — both the 'fields' projection parameter and the 'response_format' enum are fully documented in the schema, including an example value. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get store metadata') and enumerates exactly what comes back: name, domains, languages, currency, plan, address, social links. An agent can distinguish it from sibling reads like tiendanube_store_media_quotas_get without opening the schema.

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 a concrete ordering recommendation: call it first to learn which languages/i18n keys the store uses, which implies it's a preamble for locale-aware work. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, but for a single store-level read there is little competing option.

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