merchant_ids_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, yet it only names the HTTP verb. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, error/404 behavior, or that the call is a read-only, side-effect-free fetch of a single merchant ID resource.

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?

The text is short but wastes its only content by repeating the same path twice ('GET /v1/merchantIds/{id} (GET /v1/merchantIds/{id})'). There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns or does.

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-by-id tool with a rich input schema but no output schema and no annotations, the description is a bare endpoint stub. It omits expected return shape context, authentication needs, and any behavioral notes, leaving the agent with little beyond the URL to act on.

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?

All 5 parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), including id, include, fields_merchantIds, limit_certificates, and fields_certificates, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 is a verbatim REST endpoint ('GET /v1/merchantIds/{id}'), which restates the tool name merchant_ids_get_instance rather than explaining the purpose in natural language. It does imply a single-resource read versus the collection sibling, but only via the raw path, and the path is duplicated in parentheses with no added value.

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 mention of prerequisites (e.g. required auth/API key), and no comparison to alternatives like merchant_ids_get_collection for lists or merchant_ids_certificates_get_to_many_related for related resources. The agent must infer selection purely from the endpoint syntax.

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