Get all collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a concrete rate limit (100 requests / 10 seconds per shop) and the pagination cap behavior, both beyond what annotations provide.

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, no filler, with the rate-limit constraint front-loaded. The page-size sentence is partly redundant with the schema but is short enough not to be wasteful.

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 no-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination semantics and rate limiting, which are the main operational risks. It does not describe the shape of returned collections, but for a simple listing endpoint that is an acceptable omission.

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 all four parameters (page, size, search, account) are already documented in the schema. The description's page-size cap statement duplicates the schema's own 'maximum page size is 100' text, adding no new meaning. Baseline 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 ('Returns all collections') with the scope qualifier 'all', which distinguishes it from get_collection. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the verb choice makes the read-list intent unambiguous against create_collection/update_collection.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives such as get_collection for a single collection or the paginated/filtered variants. The only contextual note is a rate limit, which is operational rather than usage guidance.

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