in_app_purchase_versions_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 burden. It implies a read via 'GET' but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or what the resource represents. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 sole content is a path repeated twice in parentheses with no informational value. Brevity here comes from omission rather than efficient front-loading.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not establish what an in-app-purchase version is, when it should be fetched, or how the include/fields parameters shape the response. The schema covers parameters, but the tool's role in the broader API remains unexplained.

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 the eight parameters (id, include, limit_*, fields_*) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 when the schema 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 a restatement of the tool name and endpoint: 'GET /v1/inAppPurchaseVersions/{id}', duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys only that this is a read of an in-app-purchase version by id, which the name already implies, and offers no differentiation from siblings like in_app_purchases_v2_get_instance or in_app_purchase_versions_image_get_to_one_related.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent gets no help deciding between this and the many adjacent in-app-purchase getters in the sibling list.

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