Get a upsell

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what details are returned (offers and price), which is a behavioral detail beyond a generic 'get'. It does not mention side effects or additional constraints, but that is acceptable given the read-only, idempotent nature.

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 redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is concise. Every word 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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It mentions the return scope (full details, offers, price) and the prerequisite to obtain the id. It does not describe the exact response structure, but with no output schema and a straightforward fetch, this is a minor gap.

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%, with both parameters fully described in the schema (account mentions list_accounts, upsell_id references list_upsells). The description repeats the id source but adds no new semantic nuance over the schema. Therefore the 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'upsell', and specifies it returns 'full details' including 'what it offers and at what price'. It also distinguishes from list_upsells by implying single-item retrieval by id, and it names that sibling directly, so an agent can disambiguate.

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 gives explicit guidance to use list_upsells first when the id is unknown, which clearly establishes when to use this tool versus an alternative. It does not cover other potential alternatives (like get_upsell_pricing) or when not to use this tool, but the primary routing is addressed.

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