get_discount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get details' — implying a read operation — but discloses nothing about authentication requirements, behavior on invalid or nonexistent discount IDs, rate limits, or the nature of the returned data beyond what the output schema already provides. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 11-word sentence with zero filler. The action verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. There is no redundant phrasing or tautological repetition of the tool name.

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 low complexity (one required string parameter, an output schema, no nested objects), the description is reasonably complete: it covers the tool's purpose and the parameter's meaning. The main gap is the lack of explicit routing to sibling tools like list_organization_discounts when a full list is needed, but for a simple ID-based getter the output schema covers the return-value side, so only minor context is missing.

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 0% and there is a single required parameter (discount_id), so the description must compensate. It does add marginal value by clarifying that discount_id refers to either a promotional discount OR an access code — information not present in the schema label 'Discount Id'. However, it does not explain the ID format, how to obtain one, or whether the two types are treated differently. The compensation is minimal.

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 ('get') with a clear resource ('details of a specific promotional discount or access code'). The word 'specific' scopes it to single-item retrieval by ID, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_organization_discounts (listing) and delete_discount (mutation). An agent can identify what this tool does immediately.

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 usage ('get details of a specific...') — you call this when you have a particular discount or access code in mind, contrasting implicitly with list_organization_discounts. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as pointing to list_organization_discounts when you need all discounts or don't have an ID. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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