Shopify Admin GraphQL query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, cannot override the store/API version, and that pagination is bounded and requires explicit connection metadata. These are meaningful behavioral constraints. However, it omits response format, error handling, and authentication expectations, which would have made it more transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence provides useful information: the first states what and how, the second adds limitations and pagination requirements. No fluff or redundancy.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers the key constraints: read-only, single query, store/API fixed, pagination boundary. It falls slightly short by not mentioning expected return shape or error behavior, but for a raw GraphQL execution tool the most critical contexts are addressed.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly associates 'query' with the GraphQL operation and adds the crucial constraint that pagination requires explicit connection metadata. However, it does not clarify the 'variables' or 'operationName' parameters, leaving them to the schema. Thus it adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific action ('Executes'), a clear resource ('Shopify Admin GraphQL query'), and a key scope ('read-only', 'against the configured store'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools by emphasizing read-only, and from product_counts by being a general query tool.

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: it is read-only, executes a single query, and the store/API version cannot be overridden. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the read-only label implicitly tells the agent not to use this for mutations, and the mention of 'one query' sets expectations. No exclusions are stated, but the context is useful.

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