Get Thank You by id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a concrete, operationally relevant constraint beyond that: 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop, with a link to the rate-limiting guide. It stops short of describing behavior on a missing/invalid id, but the rate limit is real added value.

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 short, but the boilerplate rate-limit banner is placed ahead of the actual purpose sentence, which is poor front-loading and forces the agent to read past irrelevant text to find 'Get Thank You details'. The four-word purpose line is itself too thin to earn 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'Thank You' record contains, and it does not. Parameters are fully covered by the schema and the annotations cover safety, but the return content is left entirely unspecified for a get-by-id tool.

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 both parameters (account, thank_you_id) are already documented in the schema, including the pattern and maxLength constraints. The description adds nothing about parameter format or meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 says 'Get Thank You details', which restates the title 'Get Thank You by id' almost verbatim and does not clarify what a 'Thank You' resource is (tip, thank-you note, post-purchase page?) or how it differs from siblings like get_donation or get_promotion. It does imply single-resource retrieval by id, which is minimally informative but far from specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g. the account parameter, permissions), or what the alternative is if the id is unknown. The only non-purpose sentence is a rate-limit notice, which is not usage guidance.

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