promoted_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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether authentication/entitlements are required, whether the resource may 404, or how paging/sparse-fieldset behavior works for the include/fields_* parameters.

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 achieves brevity through omission rather than economy: a route string repeated twice with zero information gain. This is under-specification, not concise structure.

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 instance-fetch tool with five parameters (including relationship inclusion and sparse fieldsets), no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs. It is not misleading, but it leaves the definition reliant entirely on the structured 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%, so the schema already documents id, include, and the fields_* sparse-fieldset parameters in detail. The description adds nothing beyond the path placeholder '{id}', so baseline 3 is the correct ceiling.

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 raw route 'GET /v1/promotedPurchases/{id}' duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It restates the endpoint path already implied by the tool name promoted_purchases_get_instance, adding no human-readable statement of what a 'promoted purchase instance' is or what is retrieved. An agent can infer a read-by-id operation, but only from the name and path, not from any explanatory prose.

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 when to prefer this over promoted_purchases_create_instance, promoted_purchases_update_instance, or the apps_promoted_purchases_get_to_many_relationship sibling, and no prerequisites stated. The HTTP verb and path are the only cues the agent gets.

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