Get EULA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't repeat those. However, it adds valuable context about the return payload ('Returns agreement text and territory') and the data model ('EULA is one per app (with optional territory variants)'), which are not present in annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then return details and an alternative path. Every word earns its place, with no verbose filler or redundancy.

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 get tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return content, and the alternative mutation path. It notes the territory nuance, though it could clarify how to request a specific variant if needed, hence not a 5.

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 appId parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the EULA is 'one per app (with optional territory variants)', which clarifies the relationship between the parameter and the resource, going beyond a simple field label.

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 the tool's function: 'Get End User License Agreement (EULA) for an app.' It also identifies the return value ('Returns agreement text and territory'), making the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like update-eula.

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 explicitly provides an alternative for write operations: 'Create/update via update-eula or App Store Connect UI.' This tells the agent when to use this read-only tool versus the mutation counterpart, satisfying the when/when-not requirement.

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