subscription_availabilities_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. It discloses that the operation is a GET (implying read-only) and that it is deprecated, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, permissions, or what happens on an unknown id. The deprecation notice is the only meaningful behavioral addition beyond the schema.

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 description is short and front-loads the deprecation flag, which is good. However, the parenthetical '(GET /v1/subscriptionAvailabilities/{id})' redundantly repeats the endpoint already stated before it, adding no information. That duplication is wasted space, preventing a higher score.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what the endpoint returns or what an agent should do instead given the deprecation. It provides only the HTTP method, path, and deprecation flag, leaving the return shape and migration path unstated. This is inadequate for a 5-parameter GET tool, though the complete parameter schema mitigates some risk.

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 five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics (e.g., format of `id`, effect of `include` or `limit_availableTerritories`). The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds nothing further.

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 essentially the tool name expanded into REST syntax: 'subscription_availabilities_get_instance' becomes 'GET /v1/subscriptionAvailabilities/{id}'. It repeats the operation identifier rather than stating in plain terms what a subscription availability is or why an agent would retrieve one. This is tautological rather than a clear purpose statement.

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?

The only usage signal is the '[DEPRECATED]' tag, which warns against use but does not name an alternative tool or explain when the deprecated endpoint might still be needed. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like subscription_availabilities_available_territories_get_to_many_relationship or subscription_availabilities_create_instance.

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