subscriptions_offer_codes_get_to_many_related

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. The only signal is the GET verb implying a read-only listing; pagination behavior, auth/scope requirements, rate limits, and whether related resources are embedded versus linked are all unstated.

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 short but content-free: the parenthetical duplicates the first string exactly, so neither half earns its place and nothing is front-loaded beyond the raw path.

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?

A 12-parameter collection endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that is only a URL is completely inadequate; an agent learns nothing about scoping, sparse fieldsets, or what the response contains.

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 all 12 parameters (id, limit, include, fields_*, limit_*) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 bare restatement of the tool name and endpoint path, repeated verbatim in parentheses. It implies 'list offer codes for a subscription' via the URL, but never states the operation in prose and gives no basis for distinguishing this 'related' variant from the sibling subscriptions_offer_codes_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely named alternatives (subscription_offer_codes_get_instance, subscription_offer_codes_custom_codes_get_to_many_related, etc.). Nothing routes the agent to this tool over its many siblings.

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