Available retailers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior: check: true actually queries each site and verifies session response and active store. It does not discuss latency, rate limits, or failure behavior, but it adds meaningful context beyond the 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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the conditional check behavior. Every clause contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a low-complexity, one-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete, though a brief differentiation from find_stores would remove residual ambiguity.

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 100% and the schema already describes check as querying each site read-only. The description adds that check: true checks session responsiveness and active store, giving the parameter more operational meaning than the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists plugged-in retailers and names their capabilities such as product page, store selection, minimum order, and booked slot. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like find_stores, get_product, or cart operations.

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 clear context for use: inspect configured retailers and their capabilities. It also explains the conditional use of check: true to verify session responsiveness and active store, though it does not explicitly contrast with find_stores or state when not to use it.

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