subscriptions_plan_availabilities_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not say the call is a read, whether results are paginated (the limit/limit_availableTerritories params strongly imply pagination), what permissions are required, or how includes change the response. Complete 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?

It is short, but it is not concise in the useful sense: the single sentence is a duplicated path string that occupies the entire description yet conveys zero information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the resource being listed, pagination behavior, and relationship-inclusion semantics. None of that is present, leaving the agent with far less than it needs to call the tool correctly.

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 six parameters (id, limit, include, fields_territories, limit_availableTerritories, fields_subscriptionPlanAvailabilities) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond that, which puts it at the baseline for a well-covered schema.

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 essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name and HTTP path ('GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/planAvailabilities'), repeated twice in parentheses. It never states in natural language what the endpoint returns or why an agent would call it instead of the sibling subscriptions_plan_availabilities_get_to_many_relationship. This is a textbook tautology, not a purpose statement.

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 any alternative tool. The very similarly named sibling subscriptions_plan_availabilities_get_to_many_relationship is left unaddressed, so the agent has nothing to disambiguate the two.

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