Get upgrade paths

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 known. The description adds the detail that the tool returns products the user is 'allowed to upgrade/migrate to,' which implies a permission-based filter and a list result. However, it does not explain the exact return shape, potential empty results, or any edge cases. This is moderate additional context beyond the 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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no superfluous information.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns conceptually. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could have mentioned that the result is a list or array of products.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter product_id, with a clear description ('Product UUID'). The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 function: 'Get the products a given product is allowed to upgrade/migrate to.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('products'), and clarifies the context ('a given product'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_upgrade_paths and remove_upgrade_path, which are mutation operations.

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 usage context is implied by the description: you would use this tool to retrieve upgrade/migration options for a product. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like get_product or set_upgrade_paths. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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