subscription_offer_codes_prices_get_to_many_related

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. The only behavioral signal is the implicit 'GET' in the path, which suggests a read operation. Nothing is said about authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior for this 'to many' collection, or whether related price records are ever mutated. A collection read endpoint with zero annotations deserves far more 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?

The text is short but not concise in any useful sense: it is the same endpoint string written twice, once bare and once parenthesized, so half the content is pure duplication. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose, just a URL.

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 7-parameter collection-read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the parent resource and what the returned price records represent. Instead it supplies only the endpoint path, leaving an agent unable to decide between this and the sibling relationship/related variants.

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 all seven parameters (id, limit, include, filter_territory, and the three fields_* selectors). The description adds nothing beyond the path template, which merely echoes the required id. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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 only the raw endpoint string 'GET /v1/subscriptionOfferCodes/{id}/prices', repeated verbatim in parentheses. It does convey a verb and resource (retrieve the prices attached to a subscription offer code), but offers no explanation of what a 'price' resource represents or how this differs from the many sibling *_prices_get_to_many_related tools. Purpose is inferable from the path rather than stated.

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 about when to use this tool versus the closely named sibling subscription_offer_codes_prices_get_to_many_relationship, or the in_app_purchase_offer_codes_prices variants. No prerequisites, no pagination context, no indication of what the required {id} refers to. The agent must infer everything.

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