ClockNext: get unit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly aligns with a read operation. It adds value beyond the annotation by disclosing what 'in full' includes: 'pricing type, flat price or tiers, plus usage stats', which informs the agent about the return payload—important since there is no output schema.

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, concise sentence that leads with the verb and resource, immediately followed by what is returned. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description adequately covers the action and return contents. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that this only retrieves one unit type and not related entities, but for a straightforward get, it is 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 input schema covers the only parameter 'id' with a description ('The unit id.'). The tool description simply says 'by id', which adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; no extra parameter syntax or constraints are provided.

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 'Get one unit type in full by id', specifying the exact verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'list_units' (which lists all) and other 'get_*' tools for different entities by naming 'unit type' and enumerating the returned contents.

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 when to use this tool (when you need full unit type details by id) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. It lacks guidance such as 'use list_units to browse' or 'see get_plan for plans', so usage context is implied rather than stated.

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