discover_store

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds details about fallback behavior and error raising, providing extra context beyond annotations.

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?

Structured with intro, details, and docstring sections (Args, Returns, Raises). Every sentence contributes value without 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 no output schema, it fully describes return value (store info, endpoints, products, limits) and error conditions. Complete for a simple probe tool with one parameter.

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 only parameter, domain, is well-described with acceptable formats (example.com, with https, with trailing slash). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's plain string type.

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 probes a domain for negotiate.v1 protocol support, distinguishing it from siblings like find_stores or start_negotiation. It specifies the exact files fetched and validation performed.

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?

Provides clear usage context: probe a domain to discover protocol support, accepts multiple domain formats, and raises on failure. Lacks explicit alternatives but is sufficiently specific for selection.

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