apple_get_subscription_offer_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but nothing states permission requirements, whether the offer code must be in a certain state, or what is returned. For a lookup with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It's efficiently sized; the shortfall is missing information, not verbosity.

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?

A single-param read with full schema coverage and no output schema is close to self-explanatory, but 'details' is never specified and there is no indication of what the response contains. Just enough for a competent agent to invoke it, not enough to set expectations.

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?

Single parameter, 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents offerCodeId. The description adds nothing about ID format or provenance, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get details of a subscription offer code'. It is distinguishable by name from apple_get_iap_offer_code and apple_list_subscription_offer_codes, though the description itself does no explicit differentiating. The object 'subscription offer code' is clearly narrower than a general IAP offer code, so an agent can pick it out.

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 guidance, no exclusions, no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the sibling names that this is a single-item lookup versus the list variant, and there's no note about needing an existing offerCodeId.

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