apps_in_app_purchases_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 burden. It discloses only that the endpoint is deprecated; it says nothing about pagination, sort/filter behavior, relationship inclusion via 'include', or read-only semantics (only implied by 'GET'). For a 9-parameter query tool this leaves most behavioral context unstated.

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 not because it is concise — it is under-specified. The path is also duplicated twice with no additional content, which is pure redundancy rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the deprecation tag.

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?

A 9-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema query tool needs the description to supply context the structured fields cannot. Instead it offers only a deprecation tag and a repeated URL, leaving the agent without the resource semantics, replacement path, or behavioral expectations.

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 one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema (sort, limit, include, fields_*, filters). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when 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 is just the tool name restated as an HTTP path ('GET /v1/apps/{id}/inAppPurchases'), duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It never states in plain language that this lists the in-app purchases belonging to an app. The only added signal is the '[DEPRECATED]' marker.

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?

'[DEPRECATED]' does signal that an agent should avoid this tool, which is a form of when-not-to-use guidance. However, it never names the replacement, even though siblings like apps_in_app_purchases_v2_get_to_many_relationship and ..._related exist and are the obvious successors. The agent must infer the alternative.

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