get_partner_kit

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing an authentication requirement (platform API key) and clarifying that the operation is read-only or local, which goes beyond the annotation hints. It also gives a glimpse of the content (structured endpoints, webhook events, sample payloads) without contradicting annotations.

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 long, front-loads the primary purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence contributes essential information (what it does, where from, auth, safety), making it a model of 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?

For a simple read operation with no output schema, the description covers the key usage aspects: what it fetches, the source catalog, auth requirement, and read-only nature. It does not detail the exact return shape or error behavior, but the mention of 'structured endpoints, webhook events, sample payloads' gives a reasonable picture. The schema fills in parameter details, so the tool is adequately specified for an agent to invoke.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (kitId, partnerId) are described in the schema. The description only mentions kitId in prose ('by kitId'), but does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as when to use partnerId instead. Thus it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds little extra semantic 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 description clearly states the action: 'Fetch one API kit by kitId' from the /api/v1/kits catalog. It also specifies the resource scope (structured endpoints, webhook events, sample payloads) and differentiates from siblings like list_partner_kits by emphasizing a single kit retrieval.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires a platform API key') and notes the operation is 'Read-only or local operation', providing clear context. While it does not explicitly say when to use this vs. list_partner_kits, the singular 'one API kit by kitId' implies a targeted fetch, which is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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