ms_get_stores

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the JSON response structure (including fields like meta, rows, name, id) and noting the absence of money fields, providing concrete behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely short (two lines) and front-loaded with purpose, but it omits critical information about parameters. It is concise but under-specifies, losing points for missing essential details.

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 the tool's simplicity (read-only list with two parameters) and existing annotations, the description partially covers the output format. However, it does not explain pagination (limit/offset) or the list nature explicitly, and lacks guidance on usage context among many sibling tools.

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 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no descriptions for limit and offset. The description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent with no meaning for the parameters.

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 tool fetches warehouses/stores, calling it a 'small dictionary' and specifying 'no money fields'. This distinguishes it from siblings like ms_get_money, ms_get_products, etc.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention scenarios where it should or should not be used, nor does it reference any prerequisites or alternatives.

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