Get Store Hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the return content (codes and names) and a practical purpose, but does not elaborate on behavior like pagination, error handling, or performance. With strong annotations, this level of extra disclosure is acceptable; it's neither contradictory nor substantially richer.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the primary output, and the second gives a concrete use case. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 rich annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool returns, why an agent would use it, and even hints at the mapping context. No critical information about calling this read-only informational tool 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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (profile and magentoRoot), including their defaults and the override behavior. The tool description references the mapping purpose of the return, but does not add any extra semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('Magento store hierarchy'), enumerating its components (websites, store groups, store views) and their attributes (codes and names). This is distinct from any sibling tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use to map store_id / website_id when querying scoped data.' This gives a clear use case, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is sufficient for an agent to judge applicability.

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