get_product_purchase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Get the status,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or any other behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the operation requires special permissions or what happens if the purchase is not found. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 clear sentence, effectively communicating the core purpose without verbosity. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it lacks extra context that could be expected for a tool with many siblings.

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 simple nature of the tool and full schema coverage, the description covers the basic function. However, with many sibling tools (especially get_product_purchase_v2), it does not explain when to use this one instead of alternatives gain. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 all three parameters with clear names and descriptions (package_name, product_id, purchase_token). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the purpose: 'Get the status of an in-app product purchase.' It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from closely related tools like get_product_purchase_v2 or get_subscription_status, so it lacks differentiation.

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. Given the large sibling list including get_product_purchase_v2 and other purchase-related tools, this is a significant gap. No exclusions or context are provided.

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