get_combo_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a simple statement of purpose by explaining the structure of the return (combo_items as required items with count, bonus_items as free gifts), which gives the agent a clear expectation of the output. It does not discuss side effects, but the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then concisely explains the return format. All information is relevant and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return structure and distinguishes the two item types. It does not address error scenarios or the effect of optional parameters, but these are less critical for a simple read operation.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context about the parameters (e.g., linking bonus_items to free gifts), but it does not significantly elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('items (products/variations) and bonus products that compose a combo'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_combos which focus on the combo list rather than its components. It also previews the return fields.

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 the tool is used when you need the component items of a specific combo, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given sibling tools like get_promotion_items, explicit comparative guidance would strengthen this aspect.

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