Analyze Shopify stores (location, catalog, contacts)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: it runs the named Apify Actor on the caller's account, costs about $0.004 per store, and hard-caps spend at $0.5 per call. It also discloses that non-Shopify domains cost nothing, which affects how an agent should batch inputs.

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?

One long enumerating sentence followed by two short ones on skipping and cost; output contents are front-loaded before operational caveats. Dense but every clause carries information, with no 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?

An output schema exists so return structure needn't be spelled out, and the description still summarizes it; combined with the cost ceiling, the free-skip rule, and the Actor reference, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and cheaply. Nothing material is missing for a read-only bulk-enrichment tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no syntax or format guidance for stores, countries, or extra_input. It only echoes the cost behavior already noted in max_items ('Cost scales with this').

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 concrete verb and resource ('For each Shopify store') and enumerates the exact output fields (city/country, currency, product and collection counts, catalog snapshot, contacts), so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It never names or contrasts with the closest siblings (get_shopify_products, find_website_contacts), so the boundary between this and those tools must be inferred.

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?

Implies usage through 'Non-Shopify sites are skipped for free', which signals this is a bulk qualification pass over a store list, and the countries parameter is mentioned indirectly. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_shopify_products or find_website_contacts, and no exclusions.

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