apple_get_subscription_price_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating call and the second sentence hints at the shape of the return (IDs plus territory ID), but there is no mention of pagination, rate limits, or whether all territories are returned when the filter is omitted.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core operation front-loaded and the downstream-use note following. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 output schema and only two fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what comes back (price-point IDs, territory IDs) and how to consume it. Only pagination and the no-filter default are left unstated.

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 both parameters (subscriptionId and territoryFilter, with its 'USA' example) are already documented structurally. The description adds the notion that results are organized per territory, but no format or default details beyond the schema – baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list available price points for a subscription, scoped per territory. That scope distinguishes it in practice from siblings like apple_get_iap_price_points and apple_list_app_price_points, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Gives clear downstream context: the returned IDs plus a territory ID are the inputs for apple_create_subscription_offer_code, so an agent knows why and when to call this. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when to use the IAP or app price-point variants instead).

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