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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful domain behavior: configs do not contain price strings and prices resolve at render time from PurchasesAdapter packages, warning the agent not to copy price literals.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence is a focused, high-value caveat about price literals rather than filler.

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 read-only retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and safe-operation annotations, the description covers purpose and the key price-handling caveat. It does not detail the shape of version history or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the missing details are not required to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the id and kind parameters fully documented in the schema, including the enum for kind and the note that id comes from list_surfaces. The description adds only the broad implication that exactly one paywall or onboarding flow is retrieved, so baseline 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 states a specific retrieval action and resource: the full configuration of one paywall or onboarding flow plus version history. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic list/search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling doc-oriented tools such as get_paywall_doc or get_onboarding_doc.

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 phrase 'full configuration ... plus its version history' implies when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative. The schema description points to list_surfaces for the id, but the tool description itself does not route the agent among siblings.

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