willys_get_store

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 lists return content but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The 'get' in the name implies non-mutating, but the description itself lacks this confirmation.

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 sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently lists the key detail categories in a compact list, which is ideal for quick parsing. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the main output content (hours, fees, shipping threshold, offers link). However, without annotations or an output schema, it could go further by explicitly confirming read-only behavior and potential error conditions. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only indirectly clarifies storeId by stating the tool returns store details. The parameter name 'storeId' is self-explanatory, and the description adds no format or syntax details. Since it is a single obvious parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides store details (opening hours, pickup fee, free shipping threshold, and link to offers). This is a specific resource with concrete content, though it uses a noun phrase ('Detaljer för en butik') rather than an explicit verb. It is distinguishable from siblings like willys_find_stores or willys_nearest_stores, but the distinction is not explicitly made.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as willys_find_stores or willys_nearest_stores. It only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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