get_mercado_shop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose a real trait: the account may lack a shop and the call returns a graceful 'no shop' response rather than an error. It also reveals the shape of the payload. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the optional-feature behavior is the salient one.

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?

Three tight sentences: identity/return shape first, the optional-feature caveat second, the usage trigger last. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the empty-state behavior, which is the main thing an agent needs. Remaining omissions (response format, pagination) are immaterial for a zero-argument lookup.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 (get) and resource (Mercado Shop info) and enumerates exactly what is returned (id, name, URL, status). No sibling tool in the list overlaps with a storefront-info read, so the agent can identify it unambiguously.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'when the user asks about their store page or wants the shop URL', which gives a clear triggering condition. It doesn't name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, but no plausible sibling alternative exists here.

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