List beta license agreements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that there is one agreement per app, but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like pagination or default limit, which schema hints at.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a useful pointer to a sibling tool. No wasted words.

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 list operation with optional parameters, the description covers the core function and cardinality. It lacks parameter guidance, but the schema provides defaults/limits, and annotations cover safety, so it's largely complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 50%, with only filter.app described. The description adds no parameter information, leaving limit and filter.app semantics mostly to the schema. Since it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, parameter understanding is weaker than it could be.

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 lists TestFlight (beta) license agreements, and adds 'One per app' for scope. It also distinguishes itself by pointing to get-beta-license-agreement for reading/updating text, making the purpose unambiguous among siblings.

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 names an alternative tool for text operations, giving a clear when-to-use-this-other-tool signal. However, it doesn't fully elaborate on when to use this list tool over other list tools, though the verb 'List' implies listing all agreements.

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