subscriptions_prices_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 full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the implied read-only nature of a GET. Pagination, default/max limits, and relationship-expansion behavior are all undocumented.

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 every character is redundant — the route is repeated twice and no informative sentence is present. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 9-parameter collection-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides zero context. It leaves purpose, usage, and behavior entirely to the agent's inference from the tool 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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already documents id, limit, include, and each filter/fields argument. The description adds nothing, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is 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}/prices' duplicated in parentheses. It restates the tool name and path rather than stating purpose in prose, giving no differentiation from near-identical siblings like subscriptions_prices_get_to_many_relationship or subscriptions_price_points_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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. subscriptions_prices_get_to_many_relationship vs subscriptions_prices_delete_to_many_relationship) is the right choice. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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