ls_get_discount

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the returned fields (code, amount, type, usage limits), providing context on what the response contains 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 a single, well-structured sentence of 12 words, front-loading the core action and key details with no wasted words.

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 get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and response contents. No output schema is needed, and the description fills the gap by listing returned fields.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description's mention of 'by ID' aligns with discountId but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The include parameter is not elaborated, but the schema's description suffices.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'discount by ID', and specifies the returned fields (code, amount, type, usage limits). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ls_list_discounts (list) and ls_create_discount (create).

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 usage for retrieving a single discount by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like ls_list_discounts or exclude scenarios. Context signals show sibling tools exist but no comparative guidance is given.

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