List commerce connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety basics are covered; the description adds non-annotation value by enumerating the returned fields and by explicitly stating 'Never returns credentials', which tells the agent secrets are excluded and this call is safe to make early. It does not say how disabled/unconfigured connections appear or whether write capability reflects per-connection scopes.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first defines output contents and the security constraint, the second gives the call-order directive. Front-loading the 'what you get back' before 'when to call' is the right ordering for a discovery tool.

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?

With zero input parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the entire burden of explaining the response, and it does by naming every field returned. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema-dimension baseline is 4. The description implicitly confirms no filtering is required and pivots the reader to the returned id, which is the parameter needed by downstream tools.

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?

Specific verb (Lists) plus specific resource (configured store connections) with the concrete platforms named (Allegro, Base.com, WooCommerce) and the exact fields returned (ids, platform, environment, write capability, active safety mode). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like commerce_list_orders or commerce_list_products, which operate on commerce data rather than connection config.

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?

'Call this first to learn valid connection ids' gives explicit ordering guidance and reveals the tool's role as the id-discovery prerequisite for the other commerce_* tools. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or stating when not to call it, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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