subscriptions_promoted_purchase_get_to_one_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers none of it. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the response shape is (to-one relationship linkage vs. full resource), or any auth/scope requirement beyond the raw path.

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 the parenthetical repetition of the exact same endpoint string is pure waste with zero informational value. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no content to front-load.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and one param, the description needed to explain the return semantics of a to-one relationship endpoint. Instead it only echoes the URL, leaving the agent unable to tell what it will receive or how it differs from the 'related' variant.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, source, or meaning beyond what the schema supplies.

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 nothing more than the HTTP route restated twice ('GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/relationships/promotedPurchase (GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/relationships/promotedPurchase)'). It conveys the verb and path but adds no explanation of what the call actually does, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from its near-identical sibling subscriptions_promoted_purchase_get_to_one_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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the 'related' sibling that would be the obvious alternative. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns a relationship linkage rather than the promoted purchase resource itself.

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