List connected stores

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added job is return-shape disclosure, which it does with the enumerated fields (id, name, status, enabledNetworks, canAcceptPayments, evmPayoutStatus). It also usefully discloses a partial-failure behavior — an error entry for a store whose key no longer works — which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it does, what it returns including the failure mode, and how to sequence it. The field enumeration is dense but each item is distinct information, and the call-first instruction is front-loaded where the agent will act on it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return values, and it names the exact fields plus the error case. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no text on inputs and instead describes outputs, which is the right allocation for a parameterless list tool.

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 ('Lists the Stablevoy stores this server can work with') and scopes it ('this server can work with'), which also implicitly separates it from get_store, named later in the text.

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 explicit ordering guidance ('Call it first to learn store names for the store argument of the other tools') and names the alternative for the deeper case ('use get_store for the full settings of one store'). No inference is required from the agent.

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