Get ClickBank order upsells

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

The readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description only needs to add contextual behavior. The phrase 'for a parent receipt' adds the parent-child relationship constraint, but the description does not disclose behavior such as empty-result handling or whether results can be returned for non-parent receipts. There is no contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and object with no filler. Every word contributes semantic value.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the core input condition and the implied output. Because there is no output schema, a slightly more explicit note on the returned upsell transaction shape or behavior when none exist would make it fully complete, but this remains adequate.

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 the receipt parameter already described as a 'ClickBank receipt ID.' The description adds the 'parent receipt' role, which is a meaningful constraint beyond the schema's type-level description. This tells the agent not just what to pass, but which receipt qualifies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('upsell transactions') and a scope qualifier ('for a parent receipt'), which sets it apart from sibling order tools like get_order or list_orders. Even without naming a sibling, the phrasing makes the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 implies the tool should be used when upsell transactions for a given parent receipt are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternative tools or what conditions make it inappropriate. The context is clear enough for a simple tool, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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