get_combo_items

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description goes further by naming the two return groups (combo_items with counts, bonus_items as free gifts), which is useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about pagination, empty results, or error behavior for an invalid combo ID.

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 short sentences, return shape stated up front, zero filler words.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and the shape of the response, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around the is_variation_bonus effect and empty/error cases.

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 only two params, so the schema already documents combo_product_id and is_variation_bonus. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond the implied combo linkage, so 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (items/bonus products composing a combo), and clarifies that it returns the components of a combo rather than the combos themselves. It is distinguishable from list_combos, though it never names that sibling 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 says what is fetched but gives no when-to-use, no prerequisite framing (e.g. 'given a combo_product_id from list_combos'), and no guidance on choosing this over list_combos or get_product. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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