list_stores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral nuance that it returns 'all' stores, implying no filtering, but does not disclose other traits like pagination or response structure. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single short phrase with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and its key fields, making it highly concise and well-structured for a simple list 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is mostly complete. It names the returned fields (codes, names, types) and implies no filtering. It could mention the raw parameter behavior, but the schema already covers it, so the overall context is sufficient.

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 fully documents the single optional 'raw' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter meanings. The description offers no additional semantic context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 'All warehouses/stores (codes, names, types)' clearly identifies the resource and scope, distinguishing this list tool from siblings like list_orders or list_customers. However, it lacks an explicit verb ('list' or 'retrieve'), relying on the tool name to convey the action, so it's not a perfect 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between list_stores and other list_* tools.

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