Get one premium product

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It transparently indicates a read-only operation ('Fetches') and adds valuable context about the freshness of the data ('current tier price and stock', 'live price'). It does not describe potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, the implied safety and data freshness are sufficient.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core function and then immediately gives practical usage guidance. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is fetched, that the price is live, and when to call it. It does not describe the output structure or error behavior, but these are less critical given the simplicity and the explicit guidance that this feeds directly into create_premium_order.

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 already has 100% coverage, including a helpful description ('Product id from list_premium_products'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetches'), resource ('subscription product'), and scope ('one', with current tier price and stock). This clearly distinguishes it from list_premium_products (list vs single) and get_premium_order (order vs product), giving an agent immediate differentiation without opening schemas.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'call this right before create_premium_order so you are quoting a live price.' This is a clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use other get tools. The sibling list makes the distinction apparent, but the description itself lacks explicit exclusions.

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