apple_list_subscription_offer_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but there is nothing about pagination, ordering, whether expired/redeemed codes are included, or permission requirements for reading subscription offer codes.

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 no filler; the qualifiers 'custom/one-time-use' are exactly the load-bearing part and come before the resource noun.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context, and it omits return shape, pagination, and code-status filtering semantics. For a minimal one-parameter list tool this is adequate but noticeably thin.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage sets the baseline at 3. The phrase 'for a subscription' confirms the role of subscriptionId as the scoping key, but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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 precisely qualified resource (custom/one-time-use offer codes for a subscription), which separates it from generic offer-code listing. It does not explicitly name the near siblings (apple_list_iap_offer_codes, apple_list_win_back_offers), so differentiation is implied by the resource qualifier rather than stated.

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 implies the usage context (you need codes for a specific subscription), but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and no exclusions against the other offer-code listers in the sibling set. An agent must infer from the resource wording that this is the subscription-scoped variant.

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