apps_subscription_groups_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: no pagination behavior, no default page size, no note that 'include' and 'limit_*' interact, no auth or rate-limit context. A pure endpoint string leaves every behavioral trait undocumented.

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 comes from under-specification rather than efficiency, and the duplicated parenthetical is pure waste. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no content to front-load.

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?

This is a 13-parameter sparse-fieldset/relationship-expansion endpoint with no annotations and no output schema. The description explains none of the filtering, sorting, inclusion, or pagination semantics an agent must understand to call it correctly, making it wholly inadequate for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all 13 parameters carry their own descriptions (sort expressions, include relationships, per-relationship limits, sparse fieldsets), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema itself is thorough.

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 raw endpoint string repeated twice in parentheses; it restates the tool name rather than explaining what the tool does. An agent can infer 'fetch subscription groups for an app' only by parsing the URL path, and the parenthetical duplication adds no information.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the near-identical sibling apps_subscription_groups_get_to_many_relationship. The agent gets nothing to disambiguate among the many apps_*_get_to_many_related tools.

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