subscription_versions_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 nothing: no permission requirements, no note that a non-existent id returns 404, no explanation of how include/fields side-loading affects the response. Only the bare HTTP verb is inferable.

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 wasteful rather than concise: the entire content is the same path string printed twice in parentheses, adding zero information. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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 an 8-parameter endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is returned and how sparse-fieldset/include parameters shape the payload. It supplies none of this, leaving the agent dependent entirely on 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%, so every parameter (id, include, limit_images, limit_localizations, fields_*) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or usage detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name's implied operation and HTTP path, with the same string duplicated inside parentheses. It names no resource meaning (what a subscription version is) and gives no way to distinguish it from siblings like subscription_versions_create_instance or subscriptions_versions_get_to_many_related.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance of any kind. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call this tool versus list subscription versions or fetch the relationship endpoints.

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