apps_in_app_purchases_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 behavioral burden. The deprecation notice is a genuine behavioral signal not available in structured fields, but there is no mention of pagination behavior (despite a limit param), auth requirements, or what the relationship payload contains.

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 very short and front-loads the deprecation flag, which is good. However, the URL is repeated verbatim inside parentheses, adding zero information, so the structure is wasteful rather than efficient.

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 deprecated to-many relationship endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least point to the successor tool and note any paging semantics. As written, an agent knows only the route and that it is deprecated, which is insufficient to decide whether to call it.

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, limit), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds nothing about the id's expected format or how limit interacts with paging, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 essentially a restatement of the tool name and the HTTP path (GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/inAppPurchases), duplicated in parentheses. The only added signal is the [DEPRECATED] tag, which is useful but does not describe what the relationship fetch returns or how it differs from siblings like apps_in_app_purchases_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?

Marking the tool deprecated implies 'prefer something else,' but the description never names the replacement (e.g., the v2 in-app-purchases relationship tool) or states any condition for use. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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