in_app_purchase_availabilities_create_instance

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 almost nothing: only that the request is a POST with a JSON:API envelope. It does not state that this is a mutating create, what is created or attached to, auth/permission needs, idempotency, or side effects. It does at least imply a write via POST, which is why it is not a 1.

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 first clause is literally duplicated ('POST /v1/inAppPurchaseAvailabilities (POST /v1/inAppPurchaseAvailabilities)'), which is pure waste, and the only substantive sentence outsources the content to an external OpenAPI document rather than front-loading any usable information.

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 mutating, nested-body create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is far too thin: it never describes the resource, the required envelope contents, or the outcome. The external schema pointer is the only content, and it is not self-contained.

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 the single required body parameter, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. However, the description adds nothing beyond what the schema already says, and both merely point at the external OpenAPI component components.schemas.InAppPurchaseAvailabilityCreateRequest, leaving the actual field semantics undefined in either place.

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 the raw endpoint restated ('POST /v1/inAppPurchaseAvailabilities'), which duplicates the tool name's 'create_instance' rather than explaining in business terms what an in-app purchase availability is or what creating one accomplishes. An agent gets a URL, not a purpose, and no differentiation from the many sibling create_instance tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative (e.g. in_app_purchase_availabilities_get_instance or the v2 equivalents). Nothing tells the agent under what conditions this create call is the right choice.

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