subscriptions_subscription_availability_get_to_one_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing: no auth requirements, no response shape, no pagination or include/limit behavior. The deprecation flag is the one genuinely useful behavioral signal (the endpoint may be removed), but it is unelaborated.

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 and front-loads the deprecation warning, but the parenthetical repeats the exact same path with no added information, wasting the only sentence available. Terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient.

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 5-parameter relationship-fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned and how the include/fields/limit parameters shape the response, and should route to the non-deprecated alternative. None of that is present.

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?

All 5 parameters (id, include, fields_territories, limit_availableTerritories, fields_subscriptionAvailabilities) are documented at 100% schema coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when coverage is high.

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 only restates the tool name as an HTTP path ('GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/subscriptionAvailability'), duplicated twice in parentheses. It never states in plain language that it fetches the availability record for a subscription, so it is effectively a tautology that leaves the agent to decode the path.

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?

The only guidance is the '[DEPRECATED]' tag, which weakly implies 'prefer something else' but names no replacement. A sibling, subscriptions_subscription_availability_get_to_one_relationship, exists and is presumably the successor, yet the description does not point to it or state any condition for use.

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