subscription_group_versions_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, yet it discloses only that the operation is an HTTP GET (implying a read). It says nothing about return payload, related-resource inclusion behavior, pagination, or permissions — the same minimal level as the MID calibration example.

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 short, but the path is needlessly duplicated inside parentheses, and the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — there is essentially no content to front-load. Wasteful redundancy combined with zero informational payload.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides nothing an agent needs: it does not describe the resource, the returned object, or the effect of the include/fields parameters. It is completely 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 six parameters (id, include, limit_localizations, and the three fields_* filters) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 raw endpoint spec, 'GET /v1/subscriptionGroupVersions/{id}', which merely restates the tool name (get_instance on subscriptionGroupVersions) in URL form. It never explains what a subscription group version is or what fetching one yields, so an agent gets no purpose information beyond what the name already encodes.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling getters (e.g. subscription_group_versions_localizations_get_to_many_related, subscription_groups_get_instance). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing to alternatives — the agent must infer everything from the endpoint string.

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