in_app_purchases_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 discloses only deprecation, saying nothing about authentication requirements, whether the resource may be absent, or how the include/limit relationship expansions behave for a GET-by-id call.

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 a single short line with the deprecation warning front-loaded, so there is no padding. But brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, since the line adds almost no 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 5-parameter resource-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly empty: it never explains the returned inAppPurchase representation or how the include/fields parameters shape the response. An agent must rely entirely on the schema.

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%, with all five parameters (id, include, limit_apps, fields_apps, fields_inAppPurchases) documented inline in the schema. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states GET plus the resource path and the {id} placeholder, so the verb and resource are identifiable. However, it is effectively a restatement of the tool name with no added meaning beyond the deprecation tag, and it does not distinguish this v1 endpoint from the sibling in_app_purchases_v2_get_instance.

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?

'[DEPRECATED]' signals an agent should probably avoid this tool, which is real guidance, but no replacement is named even though in_app_purchases_v2_get_instance exists among the siblings. There is no statement of when this tool is still appropriate.

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