Get store metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the substantive content of the result (payment/shipping flags and default currency) but does not discuss error conditions or other behavioral details; with annotations present, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the key result fields stated first and the use case second. Every sentence adds value and the description is appropriately front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description states the required input, the fields returned, and a representative use case. No output schema exists, so the description adequately substitutes by enumerating the result contents.

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 single parameter store_id is already fully described in the schema as 'The ID of the store to read metadata for', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description specifies the operation ('Get'), the resource ('a store's readiness metadata'), and the exact contents returned (payment methods configured, shipping configured, default currency). It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling ecommerce tools like ecommerce_getStoresV1 and ecommerce_getCustomStorefrontSetupInstructionsV1.

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?

It gives a clear context for use: 'verify prerequisites before building a storefront.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is concrete and distinguishes it from configuration or instruction tools.

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