Get store

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific data returned (id, slug, b2c_url) and an internal operation name 'GetStore', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential errors, or data freshness. The added information is modest and not a contradiction.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences. The first sentence conveys the purpose and scope, while the second provides a useful API operation identifier. There is no redundant or filler content, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what information is returned and the scope ('current store'). The sibling context shows this is the only store-related tool, so there is no ambiguity or need for additional caveats. All necessary context is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the rubric establishes a baseline of 4 for such cases. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not attempt to add irrelevant parameter info. The mention of return fields helps somewhat, though it is not parameter-related.

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 tool's function: 'Get information about the current store (id, slug, b2c_url).' The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'store' and the specific fields returned make the purpose unambiguous. Although there are no directly competing store tools in the sibling list, it effectively distinguishes itself from other getters by its scope.

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 implies usage by stating 'current store', which is clear context for when to call it. There are no alternative store-related tools in the sibling list, so no explicit exclusions are needed. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you need store identity', but the context is sufficiently clear.

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