Get detail for a single catalog item. Call this after search_rewards when someone asks about a specific item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ISO-2 country code the item came from. | |
| item_id | Yes | The item id returned by search_rewards. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the item ID is from search_rewards and that the call is for a single item, which implies a read-only lookup. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., no mutation) or potential error cases, but for a simple 'get' tool, this is adequate context.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a clear usage directive. No wasted words.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what it does and when to use it. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but the name 'get_reward_details' implies the details are returned, and the tool is simple enough that this is likely 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 schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, though it reinforces the context that item_id comes from search_rewards.
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 function ('Get detail for a single catalog item') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for a single item rather than a search, and directly references search_rewards as the preceding step.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Call this after search_rewards when someone asks about a specific item.' This provides clear context and an implicit alternative (use search_rewards for broader queries), satisfying the when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct question: check_coverage for country availability, search_rewards for finding examples, get_reward_details for specific item info, and how_it_works for API/service details. The descriptions clearly delineate boundaries and cross-reference each other, so an agent would not confuse them.
Three tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_coverage, get_reward_details, search_rewards), but how_it_works is a phrase that breaks the pattern. This is a minor deviation that does not cause confusion.
With 4 tools, the set is tightly scoped for a catalog API: search, details, coverage check, and service info. Each tool earns its place, and the count is ideal for the apparent purpose.
The tool set covers the full user journey: check if a country is supported, browse example rewards, request specific reward details, and learn how the service works. For a read-only demonstration catalog, there are no obvious gaps.
