accessibility_declarations_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP verb: no auth/permission requirements, no statement of what is returned, no note about behavior for a missing or invalid id. A raw path echo is not behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the parenthetical repeats the identical route with zero added information, so one of the two units of text is pure noise. Brevity here reflects thin content rather than disciplined editing.

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 single-resource retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum convey the concept of the returned object and auth expectations. The route does imply 'fetch the accessibilityDeclaration with this id', but nothing else needed to call it correctly is present.

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% (both 'id' and 'fields_accessibilityDeclarations' are documented in the schema, including the full field enum), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the path parameter or sparse-fieldset syntax, but it also does not mislead.

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 is only the raw HTTP route, echoed twice: 'GET /v1/accessibilityDeclarations/{id} (GET /v1/accessibilityDeclarations/{id})'. It restates the tool name (accessibility_declarations_get_instance) in URL form rather than stating a purpose in prose; an agent learns only that this fetches one accessibility declaration by id, and gets no differentiation from the many sibling *_get_instance tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Siblings such as accessibility_declarations_create_instance, _update_instance, _delete_instance, and apps_accessibility_declarations_get_to_many_related are never referenced, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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