in_app_purchase_offer_codes_get_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, yet it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only fetch, not any auth/scope requirements, not rate limits, not what the include/limit parameters change about the response. The route string adds no behavioral context at all.

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 content is literally duplicated ('GET /v1/inAppPurchaseOfferCodes/{id}' twice), so half the text is waste and there is no front-loaded explanation of what the call returns. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 get-instance tool with nine parameters, relationship includes, and no output schema, the definition should at least name the resource and note that include/limit shape the response. None of that is present, leaving the agent dependent entirely on the schema and name.

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 nine parameters (id, include, three limits, four fields_* selectors) are individually documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes zero additional parameter meaning, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 HTTP route 'GET /v1/inAppPurchaseOfferCodes/{id}' repeated twice, which largely restates the tool name rather than stating in plain language what is retrieved. An agent can infer 'fetch one offer code by id', but nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as in_app_purchase_offer_codes_update_instance or the related-relationship getters beyond the raw path.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., the custom-codes or one-time-use-codes relationship getters). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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