Get Full Kit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it warns that the payload is large, notes that the tool requires a PREMIUM plan, and explains the error contract ('never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}'). This gives the agent clear expectations beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then gives a concrete example, usage constraints, sibling differentiation, error behavior, and safety guarantees. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because it repeats read-only/idempotent facts already present in annotations, but every sentence still carries useful guidance.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers all critical invocation context: prerequisites, alternatives, expected output shape, error format, payload size, and retry safety. Nothing important is missing.

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 has 100% description coverage and already explains that slug must be 'exactly as returned by list_kits.' The description only repeats this idea with a typical input example, adding little meaningful semantic information beyond the structured schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Load a themed kit and every member product in full.' It further clarifies the scope as 'every member product of one bundle' and explicitly contrasts with get_full_product, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use only after list_kits has confirmed the kit slug' and 'Not for a single product (get_full_product).' This directly tells the agent when to use the tool and names the alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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