cigchat_shop_discount_codes_get_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does disclose the required 'Manage Team' scope and the HTTP method (GET), implying read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state there are no side effects or describe what data will be returned. This is partial transparency, better than nothing but insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety info.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with an endpoint and a scope requirement, followed by no extra fluff. Every element earns its place, though it sacrifices some necessary detail for brevity.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) but lacks an output schema, so the description should explain what 'info' includes. It also omits distinctions from similar tools, making it incomplete for an agent that must decide between get_info and get_info_by_code. While the endpoint and auth requirement are useful, the missing return-value and usage context leave gaps.

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 describes the sole parameter 'codeId' as 'Discount Code Id', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('discount code info') and includes the exact endpoint path, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The parameter name codeId and the sibling tool 'cigchat_shop_discount_codes_get_info_by_code' help distinguish this ID-based lookup from other discount code operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cigchat_shop_discount_codes_get_info_by_code' or 'cigchat_list_discount_codes'. It only mentions a required scope, which is a prerequisite, not a usage recommendation.

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