retrieve_available_instance_products

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – results exclude the currently assigned product – but says nothing about result ordering or size/pagination, which matters for a list endpoint.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the plain-language purpose before the endpoint path and the follow-up hint. The REST path adds little for an agent but does not bloat the text.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description gives purpose, scope, the exclusion rule, and what the returned offerId is used for. Slightly incomplete on response shape and result volume, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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%, so instanceId and x-trace-id are already documented; baseline is 3. The description adds the follow-on meaning of the returned offerId, but that is not one of this tool's parameters and no extra constraint is placed on instanceId.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available products of a specific instance') and pins the scope with 'Get all products the instance can be upgraded to, excluding the currently assigned one.' This clearly distinguishes it from upgrade_instance and retrieve_instance.

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?

Implies the workflow: call this to discover options, then 'Use the `offerId` of the desired product to submit the upgrade' – effectively pointing at upgrade_instance as the follow-up. Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-lookup statement, so it stops short of 5.

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