apple_get_iap_offer_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral burden, but it adds nothing beyond the bare verb. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, what happens when the ID is unknown (error versus empty result), whether the call is rate-limited, or what kind of detail object comes back. For a getter with zero annotation coverage, this is a real 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the definition's gaps rather than an example of tight writing around rich content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'details' means (redemption info, eligibility, expiration, status), and it does not. The single input is fully documented by the schema, so the definition is adequate to invoke the tool but not to predict its result.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage as 'In-App Purchase Offer Code ID'. The description does not add format hints, whether it is an opaque App Store Connect ID or a developer-defined code string — a distinction that matters given the separate 'offer code' naming in the sibling list. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the work.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('in-app purchase offer code details'), which clearly separates it from the list/create siblings such as apple_list_iap_offer_codes and apple_create_iap_offer_code. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or state how it differs from apple_get_iap or apple_get_subscription_offer_code, which sit in the same tool family.

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 description says nothing about when to use this tool rather than apple_list_iap_offer_codes (to enumerate) or apple_get_iap (for product-level details). It likewise states no prerequisites, like needing a valid offer code ID or the permissions required to read Apple App Store Connect data.

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