Get store

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method, API version, and crucially explains the error behavior for 400 responses (verbatim message, adjust fields). However, it lacks details on auth requirements or rate limits.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes useful supplementary info (API docs link, error handling advice). No superfluous words.

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 has only one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, endpoint, documentation reference, and error handling. It could mention the return type (a store object) but is sufficiently complete for a simple GET tool.

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 coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'The store id.'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning 'by id' and linking to API docs for field names. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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 'Get' and resource 'store by id', includes the HTTP method and endpoint (GET /stores/{id}), and references the API docs. It effectively distinguishes from list_store by specifying retrieval of a single store.

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 implies use for a single store but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus loyverse_list_store or other alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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