alternative_distribution_keys_get_collection

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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the endpoint path. It says nothing about pagination (limit is a param), how results relate to apps (exists_app filter), auth requirements, or the shape/volume of the read. A pure endpoint echo for an unannotated tool is a transparency failure.

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, but the parenthetical simply duplicates the preceding endpoint path, so the 'structure' is redundant rather than efficient. This is under-specification masquerading as conciseness; the second half earns no place.

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 3-parameter collection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate: it gives no filtering semantics, no pagination note, no indication of what is returned. An agent has nothing to work with beyond the name.

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%, so the three params (limit, exists_app, fields_alternativeDistributionKeys) are already self-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, but per the high-coverage baseline of 3, no penalty below that is warranted.

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 essentially the raw endpoint string echoed twice ('GET /v1/alternativeDistributionKeys (GET /v1/alternativeDistributionKeys)'), which merely restates what the tool name already encodes. It implies a list/collection fetch but adds no semantic framing beyond 'this is a GET on alternativeDistributionKeys'. No differentiation from sibling create/get_instance/delete_instance tools beyond what the name provides.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling collection/list tools, no mention of required auth or prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit usage signal is the HTTP verb, which is inference rather than stated guidance.

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