Get Merchants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the pagination termination rule, the meaning of verbose (full upstream objects vs compact rows), and the non-obvious caveat that total_count is unreliable — a genuinely useful disclosure an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose, then arguments, then return shape and caveats — a sensible order with no filler. The 'Compact rows' field enumeration is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, though naming has_active_recurring_streams and can_be_deleted does hint at what is decision-relevant.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema already documenting returns, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: bounds, pagination loop, verbose behavior, and the total_count pitfall. Nothing required to call it is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: limit's 1–500 range with a default of 100, offset as a zero-based position with the next_offset loop, and verbose's true-case return shape. The bare schema titles would otherwise convey nothing about bounds or semantics.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource plus the scope of what is returned: 'List a page of merchants with transaction and rule counts.' It also distinguishes the tool from its write-side sibling by stating 'Merchant IDs feed delete_merchant', so an agent knows this is the read-side entry point rather than a mutation.

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 concrete operational guidance: paginate by following next_offset until null, and trust next_offset over total_count because Monarch's merchantCount may cover a different set. It does not state when to prefer this over another listing tool, but no other merchant-listing sibling exists, so the gap is minor.

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