Get OneShot pack detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: it 'Reports unverified honestly when no execution receipt exists yet -- never implies a verification the receipt doesn't support.' It also enumerates the contents of the response (receipt facts, price, refund policy, buy URL), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. However, it does not mention potential errors, auth requirements, or side-effect behavior, which are common in detailed transparency. Still, for a get operation, the disclosed honesty about verification status is notable.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full detail for one OneShot pack by slug') before elaborating on the contents. Every clause adds value, and there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns. It does so comprehensively: what you get, architecture highlights, scale envelope, FAQ, receipt facts, price, refund policy, buy URL, and the verification honesty disclaimer. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result correctly.

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%: the slug parameter has a clear description with an example and guidance to use sibling tools. The tool description adds little beyond 'by slug', which is redundant. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics well, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Full detail for one OneShot pack by slug'. It specifies the resource (OneShot pack), the scope (one pack), and the identifier (slug). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_packs (lists multiple packs) and search_packs (searches), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: when you have a specific slug and need full pack detail. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the parameter schema instructs to 'Use list_packs or search_packs to find slugs', providing clear guidance on obtaining the required slug. This is strong contextual guidance, though the tool description itself could be more explicit about alternatives.

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