get_shop_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, data freshness, or response format. The trailing '[query]' is unexplained.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description adequately lists the key data fields. However, it could be improved by explicitly noting that no parameters are required and by clarifying the return format.

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 no parameters (type object, empty), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter semantics, but according to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The '[query]' suffix is ambiguous but does not affect scoring.

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 clearly states the verb 'Obtiene' (gets) and resource 'estado actual de la tienda' (current store status), listing specific fields: language, credits, basic configuration. This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like get_credits_info or get_storage_status, though some overlap may exist with 'basic configuration'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context for prerequisites, exclusions, or situation-specific selection, which is problematic given the large number of sibling tools.

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