subscription_offer_codes_prices_get_to_many_relationship

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 says nothing about pagination, auth, or that this is a read-only relationship listing. A bare path is not behavioral 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 single sentence is a redundant restatement of the name with the path repeated twice in parentheses. Nothing is front-loaded with useful information because there is no useful information.

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 relationship-listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain what a 'prices' relationship returns and how to page it. As written, an agent has only the raw endpoint to work from.

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% (both 'id' and 'limit' are documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no syntax, format, or pagination semantics beyond the schema.

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 only restates the tool name as a URL path: 'GET /v1/subscriptionOfferCodes/{id}/relationships/prices'. It technically conveys a GET on the prices relationship of a subscription offer code, but gives no plain-language statement of purpose and nothing that distinguishes it from siblings such as subscription_offer_codes_prices_get_to_many_related or in_app_purchase_offer_codes_prices_get_to_many_relationship.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical sibling tools the agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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