apps_promoted_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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only paginated collection fetch, not the difference from the relationship variant, not pagination or auth behavior. The path restatement adds zero behavioral context.

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?

The text is short but not concise in a useful sense: the same endpoint string appears twice, which is pure redundancy, and no informative clause replaces it. It is under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded.

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 six-parameter, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what resource is returned and how it relates to the app. None of that is present, so an agent cannot confirm correct invocation from the description alone.

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 all six parameters (id, limit, include, fields_subscriptions, fields_inAppPurchases, fields_promotedPurchases) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format information beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 merely repeats the raw endpoint path verbatim, including a duplicate of the same path in parentheses. It never states in words that this retrieves the promoted purchases associated with an app, so it functions as a tautology of the tool name rather than an explanation of purpose.

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, and critically no mention of the sibling apps_promoted_purchases_get_to_many_relationship, whose behavior differs (full related resources vs. linkage data). The agent is left to infer the distinction entirely from the tool name suffix.

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