subscription_offer_codes_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. The bare HTTP verb 'GET' weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about permissions, auth requirements, error behavior, or that 'include' expansions trigger extra fetches. For a 10-parameter read tool with zero annotation coverage this is inadequate disclosure.

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 brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy: the identical path string is duplicated in parentheses, adding no information. 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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to carry meaning about the returned resource and the include/fields expansion behavior. Instead it only echoes the URL, leaving an agent to reconstruct usage entirely from schema field names.

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% and each of the 10 parameters (id, include, limit_*, fields_*) has its own schema description, so the schema does the explanatory work. The description adds nothing beyond the path template, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema is fully documented.

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 endpoint path repeated twice verbatim: 'GET /v1/subscriptionOfferCodes/{id} (GET /v1/subscriptionOfferCodes/{id})'. It conveys that this fetches a single subscription offer code by ID, but that is effectively a restatement of the tool name with no plain-language purpose, no differentiation from siblings such as subscription_offer_codes_get_collection or the *_get_to_many_related variants.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The only implicit signal is the {id} path parameter, from which an agent can infer 'retrieve one resource', but nothing states prerequisites, when to prefer the relationship endpoints, or when to use the collection endpoint instead.

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