Get redemption

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the response includes the viewer's item-question answers — content structure not visible in the schema — but says nothing about auth scope or error behavior.

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 tight sentence with the resource fetch front-loaded and the return detail appended. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 read-only single-record fetch with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description supplies enough: identity of the record and the notable payload (viewer answers). Minor gap is the absence of any note on missing/unknown redemption behavior.

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%, so both parameters (channel, redemptionId) are already documented with formats and defaults. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema's 'Redemption id (24-character hex id)'; baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ('Get one store redemption by id') and names what it returns ('the viewer's answers to the item's questions'). It implicitly separates itself from store_redemptions_list/search/mine by being a single-record fetch, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the id-based singular fetch and the surrounding CRUD siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus store_redemptions_list or store_redemptions_search, and no stated prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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