get_store_information_inserts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'retrieves' and 'returns a list of information insert items', implying a read-only operation, and notes the authentication requirement. However, it does not detail what happens on failure, performance characteristics, or any side effects beyond retrieval.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that cover the purpose, return type, and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant information.

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 simplicity (only two parameters, no nested objects), the description is adequate. It explains the purpose, return type, and auth requirement. It does not detail the exact structure of return items, but this is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

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%, with both store_id and insert_ids fully described with examples. The tool description adds only minimal context (e.g., mentions placements), but does not significantly enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (retrieves), the resource (store-specific information inserts), and the context (for a given store and placement identifiers, during checkout). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying checkout-related placements and referencing Carrefour France.

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 provides clear usage context: it is useful for displaying contextual informational content at specific checkout locations. It also notes the authentication requirement, which is a key prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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