get_merchant_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the return structure (dict with merchant fields), which implies a read-only operation. It does not state safety guarantees explicitly (e.g., no side effects), but the GET method and the '查詢' (query) wording provide reasonable transparency for a simple detail retrieval tool.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear headings: purpose, API call, and return structure. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every section adds value without redundancy. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple tool.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the return fields (id, name, handle, currency, locale, country, email, phone, address, created_at). It also includes the API endpoint and a clear use case. For a get-by-id detail tool with one parameter, this description is complete and provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter merchant_id, including a helpful description that explains where to obtain it ('由 list_merchants 回傳的 id 欄位取得'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states '取得指定商家的詳細資訊' (get detailed information for a specified merchant), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly describes a single-merchant detail query, distinguishing it from list-style tools like list_merchants. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast its scope with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 【用途】 section states that it is suitable for confirming specific merchant settings or data verification ('適合確認特定商家設定或做資料核對'), providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for common use cases.

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