get_store_purchases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it retrieves all purchases but omits details like return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is very short at one sentence, which is concise. However, it could be more informative without adding length, such as mentioning pagination or scope. It earns its place but leaves room for improvement.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should elaborate on what a 'store purchase' is and how the tool behaves (e.g., pagination limits, ordering). It does not, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage without external knowledge.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (page, per_page). It does not explain how parameters affect the result or provide usage context.

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 'Get all store purchases' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (store purchases). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_store_purchase' (singular) by implying a list operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention pagination or that 'all' might be subject to pagination limits.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_store_purchase' for a single purchase. The description does not provide context for selection, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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