app_price_points_v3_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing — no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, whether include/fields affect payload size, or error behavior for a missing id. A bare URL path is not behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is short, but it wastes its one sentence by repeating the identical endpoint string twice in parentheses. The duplicate conveys no additional information and leaves the definition under-specified rather than concise.

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?

This is a five-parameter endpoint with relationship-inclusion and sparse-fieldset options, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains none of the resource, the include mechanics, or the response shape, so it is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% and all five parameters (id, include, fields_apps, fields_territories, fields_appPricePoints) are documented directly in the schema with enums and descriptions. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does all the work.

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 only the raw endpoint path 'GET /v3/appPricePoints/{id}', duplicated in parentheses. It implies a single-resource fetch of an app price point, but adds no explanation of what an app price point is or how the v3 price point differs from sibling resources like app_price_points_v3_equalizations_get_to_many_related or subscriptions_price_points_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 guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the equalizations relationship tools or apps_app_price_points_get_to_many_relationship. The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name.

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