Read a store and its settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description still adds value by stating that settings are changed in the Stablevoy dashboard (telling the agent this is not the mutation path) and by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 verb and resource before the field enumeration and the routing advice. The field list is long, but it substitutes for a missing output schema and each item is substantive rather than filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the return contents, the safe-read nature, and the escalation path from create_invoice. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains it accepts an id or exact name from list_stores and is only needed with multiple stores. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Gets one store with its settings") and then enumerates the exact settings returned, so an agent knows the payload shape before calling. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_stores, which returns stores briefly.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition — "Call it first when create_invoice fails or a store cannot accept payments" — and names the alternative for the broader case ("use list_stores to see all stores briefly"). Both the when and the when-not are covered with a named sibling.

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