Get beta license agreement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the operation is known to be safe and side-effect-free. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only noting the returned content is text and that it is app-specific. It doesn't disclose error handling, authorization needs, or pagination, but the annotations cover the key safety traits, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and pointing to the update sibling in the second. There is no wasted wording, and it is easily parsed in a quick scan.

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 getter operation with rich annotations and a single fully documented parameter, the description is almost complete. It states the return type (text), references the update tool, and the schema fills in the parameter source. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the list alternative within the description itself, but this is covered by the schema and sibling context.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with a description for betaLicenseAgreementId, explaining it is the beta license agreement ID from list-beta-license-agreements. The tool description itself doesn't elaborate on the parameter, but the schema does the heavy lifting. With such coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it gets the TestFlight beta license agreement text for an app. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource, and it differentiates from the update sibling by mentioning update-beta-license-agreement. While it doesn't explicitly mention list-beta-license-agreements, the singular 'get' versus 'list' pattern makes the purpose clear.

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 provides only limited guidance on when to use this tool. It points to update-beta-license-agreement for updates, which is an alternative for a different operation, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over list-beta-license-agreements or how to obtain the ID. The schema parameter description mentions the ID comes from list-beta-license-agreements, but the description itself does not carry that guidance.

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