getShop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds that it returns basic info and requires no args, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond annotations. It is consistent but adds minimal value.

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 sentences, all relevant and front-loaded. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second states no args, and the third provides usage context. No extraneous 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?

For a simple readonly tool with no parameters, the description adequately lists the types of information returned (shop name, URL, operator info, tax settings). No output schema is present, but the description covers the return content sufficiently. Given the annotations and complexity, no additional detail is needed.

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 input schema has a single optional dummy parameter described as 'Not used', and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that no arguments are needed. This adds clarity beyond the schema by explicitly stating '引数は不要です' (no arguments needed).

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 retrieves basic information (shop name, URL, operator registration, tax settings) of the authenticated shop. This is a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('basic info of authenticated shop'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like getProduct or getSales.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before other calls to get shop settings/operator info, or when the agent wants to confirm the connected shop. It also says no arguments are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, missing a small opportunity for clearer exclusion.

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