apps_app_price_points_get_to_many_related

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. It does not mention pagination behavior, required scopes/permissions, or that results are scoped to a single app; the only hint (GET = read) is already implied by the name.

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 structurally wasteful: the same route string appears twice, with the parenthetical duplication conveying zero additional information. There is no front-loaded explanation of purpose or scope.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the resource being listed and how the filters relate to it. Instead it provides only the raw route, leaving an agent with no basis for correct invocation beyond the schema.

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%, so every parameter (id, limit, include, filter_territory, fields_*) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which yields the baseline 3 under the high-coverage rule.

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 a bare restatement of the HTTP route, repeated verbatim in parentheses ('GET /v1/apps/{id}/appPricePoints (GET /v1/apps/{id}/appPricePoints)'). It names a resource and implies a read, but it is tautological with the tool name and gives no explanatory content about what the endpoint returns.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as apps_app_price_points_get_to_many_relationship, app_price_points_v3_get_instance, and in_app_purchases_v2_price_points_get_to_many_related exist, and nothing here distinguishes them.

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