subscriptions_promotional_offers_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 disclosure burden. The 'GET' prefix is the only behavioral signal (read-only, non-destructive), and it is already implied by the name; nothing is said about pagination (despite limit/limit_prices params), rate limits, auth scopes, or whether the returned collection can be empty.

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 same route string is repeated twice in parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than conciseness. No sentence adds information beyond the tool name, so nothing here earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter, filterable, paginated collection endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies none of the missing context: no return shape, no relationship to include/fields semantics, no indication that id refers to a subscription resource. Completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 eight parameters (id, limit, include, limit_prices, and the four fields_/filter_ params) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case rather than a failure.

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 verbatim restatement of the endpoint path, which is exactly what the tool name already encodes ('subscriptions_promotional_offers_get_to_many_related'). It technically reveals a GET on a subscription's promotionalOffers collection, but adds no explanatory content about what a promotional offer is or how this differs from sibling endpoints like subscriptions_promotional_offers_get_instance or subscription_promotional_offers_prices_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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The path implies retrieving promotional offers for a given subscription id, but the agent gets no signal about when to reach for this versus the 'relationship' variant or the parent subscriptions_get_instance tool with an include parameter.

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