subscriptions_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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-only/safety profile, no auth requirements, no error behavior for a missing id, and no explanation of how the numerous include/limit/fields parameters affect the response.

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 brief, but the parenthetical literally repeats the string before it, so half the text does not earn its place. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient concision.

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 25 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nowhere near adequate. It gives the agent nothing about the resource, its relationships, or expected return shape for a complex SPIs endpoint.

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% (25 params, all with descriptions), so the schema already documents id, include, limits, and field selectors. The description adds no meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 just the HTTP route 'GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}' duplicated in parentheses. It restates the tool name (subscriptions_get_instance) in URL form without explaining what a subscription resource is or what the call returns, so it is effectively a 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 guidance on when to use this single-resource fetch versus siblings such as subscriptions_create_instance, subscriptions_update_instance, or the many subscriptions_*_get_to_many_relationship tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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