apple_list_iap_offer_codes

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. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether results are paginated, what the response shape is, or any auth/rate-limit expectations for a simple one-parameter list.

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 short sentence with the resource qualifier ('custom/one-time-use') front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant or misplaced.

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 simple single-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose but omits what the response contains (code strings, redemption limits, expiry), which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the single parameter iapId is documented as 'In-App Purchase ID'. The description only implies that iapId scopes the listing and adds no format, ID-source, or filtering detail beyond the schema, so the 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 ('List') and a specific resource ('custom/one-time-use offer codes configured for an in-app purchase'), which is enough to distinguish it from the subscription-offer-code siblings by resource type. It does not explicitly name apple_list_subscription_offer_codes or apple_get_iap_offer_code as the alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to use this tool versus apple_list_subscription_offer_codes, apple_get_iap_offer_code, or apple_create_iap_offer_code, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the implied read semantics of 'List', leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name.

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