Get discount redemption

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about error behavior for unknown IDs, authentication requirements, or the account scoping implied by the schema's "account" parameter.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with three parameters.

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 simple read-only getter with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally viable. It omits any mention of the optional account and include parameters or of how a missing redemption is reported, but no output schema exists to make return-value explanation strictly necessary.

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 detailed descriptions for id, account, and include, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the id parameter ("with the given ID") and adds no meaning for account or include; baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Retrieves the discount redemption") and identifies the keying parameter ("with the given ID"). It is clear on its own but does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_discount_redemptions or explain why one would fetch a single redemption rather than list them.

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 versus list_discount_redemptions or get_discount, and no stated prerequisites such as required scopes or account context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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