apps_promoted_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 burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP verb. It doesn't confirm this is a read-only list operation, say what pagination behavior the 'limit' enables, or note auth requirements; the GET token is the only behavioral signal.

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 entire content is a duplicated route string with no front-loaded prose statement of purpose. The parenthetical repetition of the identical endpoint is pure waste rather than structure.

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 list-relationship tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanatory text, an agent cannot tell what the response contains (promoted purchase resource identifiers vs. full objects) or how paging works. Too much is left to inference from the URL 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, limit) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it doesn't even hint that 'limit' paginates the promoted-purchases relationship listing.

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 tool name/HTTP route verbatim, twice, in parentheses. It conveys 'GET the promotedPurchases relationship for an app' only through the URL path rather than through prose, so an agent must decode the route to infer purpose and gets no differentiation from the many sibling relationship tools (e.g. apps_promoted_purchases_get_to_many_related, apps_promoted_purchases_replace_to_many_relationship).

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?

No when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as apps_promoted_purchases_get_to_many_related or promoted_purchases_get_instance, and no indication of prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the fact that it is a GET relationship route.

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