in_app_purchases_v2_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 of behavioral disclosure. It signals only that this is an HTTP GET; it says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, error behavior for a missing id, or how the include/fields/limit parameters affect the response. 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 very short, but the parenthetical repeats the identical string already stated before it, so a portion of the text is pure redundancy rather than earned content. There is no front-loaded explanation of the resource to justify the brevity.

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 complex tool with 18 parameters, including relationship includes and sparse fieldset selectors, no output schema, and no annotations. The description supplies none of the context an agent would need — what an in-app purchase v2 is, what the id refers to, or how to use includes — so it is 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%, so all 18 parameters (id, include, fields_*, limit_*) are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the path template, which is the expected baseline 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 the endpoint path restated twice — 'GET /v2/inAppPurchases/{id} (GET /v2/inAppPurchases/{id})' — which is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does imply a read of a single in-app purchase v2 resource, but it never explains what that resource is and gives no differentiation from siblings such as in_app_purchases_get_instance or in_app_purchases_v2_versions_get_to_many_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 guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent must infer entirely from the name that this fetches one IAP v2 by id rather than the v1 variant or a relationship endpoint.

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