Get offer code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read only' is redundant. However, it adds real value beyond the structured fields by disclosing the required auth scope ('scope: edit_products') and the native endpoint, which help an agent understand access prerequisites.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding. The endpoint and scope details are appended efficiently, though the first sentence slightly restates the title.

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 some burden for return semantics but says nothing about what the offer code object contains or the response shape. It does cover the read-only nature, endpoint, and required scope, which is adequate for a single-resource GET but leaves the return format undocumented.

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%, with all three parameters documented (account, product_id, offer_code_id) including the opaque-ID format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so 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 name and first sentence ('Get offer code') state a verb+resource, and the native endpoint 'GET /products/:product_id/offer_codes/:id' clarifies this retrieves a single offer code scoped to a product. The ':id' path distinguishes it implicitly from the list_offer_codes sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_offer_codes or get_product. 'Read only; no local effect approval required' is a safety note, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer routing on its own.

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