Get a downsell

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that the response includes offers and price, which is content rather than behavior. No contradictions, but little added behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is a natural follow-up. Every element earns its place.

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 complexity (simple get-by-id), the fully documented schema, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It indicates the nature of the returned data (offers and price) and offers a practical usage tip. It does not mention edge cases or errors, but these are not critical for a read-only fetch.

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%, so the downsell_id and account parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond referencing the id via 'by id'. This meets the baseline for high coverage but offers no additional detail beyond the schema.

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 action (Get), the resource (a downsell), and the specific details returned (offers and price). It distinguishes itself from list_downsells (which lists all) and implies a contrast with get_downsell_pricing by mentioning price in the full details. This is 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 instructs to use list_downsells first if the id is unknown, which is a clear when-to-use guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use get_downsell_pricing instead or how this differs from that sibling, so there is a minor gap in routing between alternatives.

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