subscription_price_points_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 of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers almost nothing. The 'GET' verb implies a read, but there is no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the resource is cached, or what the include/fields expansions do at runtime. For a 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the parenthetical duplicate of the same path is pure waste that earns nothing. It is concise by omission rather than by discipline.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description needs to explain what the endpoint returns and how the include/fields parameters shape the response. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent to infer everything from the path alone.

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 id, include, fields_territories, and fields_subscriptionPricePoints. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies rather than a penalty.

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 'GET /v1/subscriptionPricePoints/{id} (GET /v1/subscriptionPricePoints/{id})', which restates the tool name in URL form and repeats it verbatim in parentheses. It never explains what a subscription price point is or why an agent would fetch one. Only the verb+resource embedded in the path keeps it above a pure tautology.

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 mention of the many plausible alternatives (subscriptions_price_points_get_to_many_relationship, subscription_price_points_equalizations_get_to_many_relationship, in_app_purchases_v2_price_points_get_to_many_related). The URL implies fetching a single resource by id, which is the only implicit usage signal.

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