get_discount_position

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description itself adds no behavioral information beyond the basic action. It does not disclose what is returned, how errors are handled (e.g., if the position does not exist), or any side effects. The description carries no extra weight, so with the low bar set by annotations, this is still a minimal pass but lacks meaningful behavioral 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 extremely concise at four words, with no unnecessary padding. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, and adding a few words about the document context could improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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 that the tool requires three parameters and has no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not contextualize discount positions within quotes, orders, or invoices, nor does it explain that the tool depends on identifying a document. The agent would need to infer the purpose from the parameter names, which is risky, especially for a relatively specialized concept like a discount position.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (kb_document_type, document_id, position_id) having descriptive text. The tool description itself adds no parameter-related meaning, but since the schema already explains the parameters, the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'a discount position', clearly indicating this tool retrieves a single discount position. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'list_discount_positions', so the distinction between getting one vs many is implied by the name rather than stated.

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 instead of alternatives like 'list_discount_positions' or other position getters. It does not state that it requires a document type, document ID, and position ID, nor does it mention any prerequisites or use cases. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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