subscription_groups_get_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals nothing beyond the HTTP method. It does not state that this is a read-only fetch, nor describe include/limit behavior, pagination, or required permissions.

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 the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, and the duplicated path in parentheses is pure redundancy that earns no place.

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 tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the resource and what is returned. It supplies none of this, leaving the definition wholly inadequate.

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 nine parameters (id, include, limit_*, fields_*) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 for full-coverage schemas.

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 a verbatim restatement of the endpoint ('GET /v1/subscriptionGroups/{id}'), duplicated parenthetically. Only the resource name and the GET verb let an agent infer it retrieves a subscription group; no plain-language statement of purpose is given, making it close to a tautology that merely restates the tool name.

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 prerequisites, and no differentiation from the many sibling tools (e.g., subscription_groups_subscriptions_get_to_many_related or subscription_groups_update_instance). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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