store_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of describing the effect. 'Navigate the connected page' clearly communicates that this tool changes current page state or location. It also adds caveat about typical usage, which is useful behavioral context, though it does not detail error cases or side effects beyond navigation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and examples, and a clear alternative in the second sentence. No wasted words and the guidance is easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema requirements. The description covers what it does, gives path examples, and flags when it should be avoided, making it complete for the agent's needs.

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 already documents the only parameter 'path' with 'Path beginning with /', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds examples, which are helpful, but it does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 action: navigating the connected page to a store path, with concrete examples like '/checkout'. It is specific about the verb and resource, but it does not directly differentiate itself from the sibling tools store_status and store_read_log, instead distinguishing from a different page-level navigate_to tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent when not to use the tool ('Most journeys do not need this') and names the preferred alternative ('the page's own navigate_to tool is usually the right one'). This gives clear routing guidance with little ambiguity.

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