alternative_distribution_keys_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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no note on whether the key is sensitive material, no error behavior for an invalid id. A bare URL is not behavioral context.

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 single sentence is a verbatim duplication of the same path twice, so half the text is pure waste and nothing is front-loaded beyond the endpoint. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what a key is and what the response contains. It says nothing, leaving the agent entirely dependent on the tool name and schema.

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%, and the schema already documents both 'id' (the id of the requested resource) and 'fields_alternativeDistributionKeys'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a duplicated REST path, 'GET /v1/alternativeDistributionKeys/{id} (GET /v1/alternativeDistributionKeys/{id})', which restates the tool name rather than explaining what the resource is or what fetching it returns. An agent can infer a read of a single alternative distribution key, but nothing distinguishes it from the sibling get_instance tools beyond the raw URL.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as alternative_distribution_keys_get_collection or apps_alternative_distribution_key_get_to_one_relationship. The agent must infer everything 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.