DSers Store & Rule Discovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that ae_expired doesn't block imports (clarifying a potential confusion) and plan_issue only appears for real subscription problems, which helps the agent interpret responses correctly. No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical usage instructions and behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains its foundational role, the third details return values, the fourth clarifies error conditions, and the fifth provides procedural guidance. No wasted words.

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 complexity as a discovery endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, usage sequence, return structure (stores with id, name, etc., and rules), and key behavioral nuances (ae_expired, plan_issue). With annotations covering safety, this provides all necessary context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'target_store'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it implies the parameter's role by mentioning store IDs from the response. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resources 'available stores and supported rules', specifying it's for the connected DSers account. It distinguishes from siblings by explaining this is the foundational discovery call that provides IDs and configuration needed by all subsequent operations, unlike product-specific or rule-specific tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this first' and provides clear when-to-use guidance: to get store IDs and configuration for subsequent operations. It distinguishes from alternatives by noting this is for discovery, not for imports, previews, etc., and explicitly says 'do NOT retry discover' after calling, preventing misuse.

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