list_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating a read-only action, and '取得' does convey retrieval rather than mutation. However, it does not disclose pagination, output shape, permissions, or the impact of the optional marketplaceId, leaving some behavioral details implicit.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words or redundant information. It immediately identifies the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate in conveying the basic purpose. It is less complete because there are no usage exclusions, no annotations, and no mention of default marketplace behavior or return format beyond the implied list.

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% and the single parameter marketplaceId is documented with its default, so the schema already explains the parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 '取得' (retrieve) and the resource '全フルフィルメントポリシー一覧' (all fulfillment policies list), so an agent can tell what it does. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope 'all' helps distinguish it from single-policy or shipping-service 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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as delete_policy, get_policy_exclusions, or list_shipping_services. The description implies it is for retrieving all fulfillment policies but never states when not to use it or which sibling covers other needs.

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