subscription_promotional_offers_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, and it discloses almost nothing. The literal GET verb weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive call, but there is no mention of authentication scope, pagination, error behavior, or whether include/sparse-fieldset queries have side costs.

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 sole sentence is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure waste rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no explanatory content at all, leaving the definition under-specified.

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 6-parameter endpoint involving relationship includes, price limits, and sparse fieldsets, the description explains none of that behavior, and there is no output schema to lean on. An agent learns only the HTTP method and path, which it could largely infer from the name.

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, limit_prices, and the three sparse-fieldset parameters. The description adds nothing beyond the path placeholder {id}, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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 a REST path restated twice ("GET /v1/subscriptionPromotionalOffers/{id} (GET /v1/subscriptionPromotionalOffers/{id})"), which essentially repeats the tool name's get_instance semantics. It implies retrieval of one promotional offer but offers no readable statement of purpose and does not distinguish this from sibling create/update/delete or the prices relationship tools.

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, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives appear anywhere. Siblings such as subscription_promotional_offers_prices_get_to_many_related, subscription_promotional_offers_update_instance, and subscription_promotional_offers_delete_instance exist, yet the description gives zero routing guidance.

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