apps_app_price_schedule_get_to_one_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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the endpoint: no read-only confirmation, no auth requirements, no return-shape or pagination notes for what is a multi-include, limit-bearing read 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?

It is short, but the brevity is wasted: the single sentence is a verbatim duplication of the endpoint path, duplicating the name rather than front-loading any useful information.

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?

An 8-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain relationships, includes, and limits; the description provides none of this and is therefore wholly inadequate to 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about include values, field sets, or limit semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 only restates the HTTP verb and path ('GET /v1/apps/{id}/appPriceSchedule') duplicated verbatim, which is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It never says in plain language what an app price schedule is or what the tool returns, so sibling differentiation relies entirely on the encoded name.

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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling app_price_schedules_get_instance or apps_app_price_schedule_get_to_one_relationship. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are given.

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