get_device_tier_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return structure (deviceGroups, deviceTierSet, userCountrySets) and adds semantic detail about device selectors. Although it doesn't disclose potential side effects or permissions, it is a read-only get operation and the description gives enough context for an agent to understand the behavior without contradictions.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded ('Get one device tier config by id'), followed by essential detail on the return contents and usage context. Every clause earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return shape by listing the contained entities. It also provides necessary context for obtaining the id and explains the Play Asset Delivery relevance. It lacks any mention of error conditions or permission requirements, but for a simple get operation with low complexity, this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are clearly described. The description repeats the parameter guidance for device_tier_config_id ('Get ids from list_device_tier_configs') but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does not mention package_name beyond the schema, so the description adds no marginal value.

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 verb 'Get' with the resource 'device tier config' is specific and clear. It explicitly mentions the included entities (deviceGroups, deviceTierSet, userCountrySets) and distinguishes itself from the sibling list_device_tier_configs by saying 'Get one... by id' and instructing to obtain ids from the list. This clearly differentiates its purpose.

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?

It explicitly tells the user to get ids from list_device_tier_configs, which is a direct alternative and prerequisite. It also provides context about Play Asset Delivery, implying when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives beyond the list tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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