list_merchants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a listing/discovery operation (implying read-only behavior), it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, what the response format looks like, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides valuable usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity (listing operation with 2 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details about response format, authentication requirements, and behavioral characteristics that would be important for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('category' and 'limit') with their types and descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List available Paylo merchants and storefronts') and identifies the resource type. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'search_products' by focusing on merchant discovery rather than product search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other merchant-related tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 context for when to use this tool ('Use this to discover stores before searching for products'), establishing it as a preliminary step to product searches. It implicitly distinguishes from 'search_products' by focusing on merchants rather than products. However, it doesn't provide explicit exclusions or mention alternatives like 'get_product_details' that might also involve merchant information.

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