get_product_purchase_v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns line items and acknowledgement state, and implies a read-only operation via 'Get the status.' While it doesn't list permissions or error behavior, the core behavioral aspect (what it returns and the difference from sibling) is well covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence and the distinguishing detail in the second. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 has only two parameters, a detailed output schema, and no nested objects. The description clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool and explains the return specifics. It could explicitly state the read-only nature or handling of invalid tokens, but overall it covers the essential context needed for correct invocation.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (package_name, purchase_token). The description does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves, only to the tool's behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter semantics effectively.

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 purpose: 'Get the status of an in-app product purchase using the v2 API.' It also distinguishes from sibling tool get_product_purchase by noting the key difference (token-only identification and return of line items/acknowledgement state), 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 explicitly contrasts with get_product_purchase, telling the agent when to use this version versus the alternative. It specifies that this tool works 'by token alone' and what it returns, providing clear situational guidance for tool selection.

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