analytics_reports_instances_get_to_many_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses essentially nothing. The 'GET' verb weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the presence of a limit parameter is implied by the schema, but there is no statement about authentication, pagination behavior, or what relationship data is returned.

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 every character is wasted: the same path is printed twice inside a redundant parenthetical, and none of it earns its place by adding meaning. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 relationship-fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain what an 'instances' relationship yields and how pagination works. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to reason about the call beyond the path itself.

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% for both parameters ('id' and 'limit'), so the schema already fully documents them and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever beyond what the schema supplies.

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 is nothing but the raw HTTP path repeated twice in parentheses: 'GET /v1/analyticsReports/{id}/relationships/instances (GET /v1/analyticsReports/{id}/relationships/instances)'. It technically contains a verb (GET) and a resource, but that is a tautological restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of what the tool does, and it gives no basis for distinguishing it from the near-identical sibling analytics_reports_instances_get_to_many_related.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the -related vs -relationship sibling that an agent must choose between. The endpoint path is the only information offered, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.

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