android_to_ios_app_mapping_details_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 says nothing. It does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior for unknown ids, pagination/sparse-field semantics of the fields_... parameter, or output shape.

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 very short, but the content is the same route string duplicated inside parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than front-loaded information. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficient prose.

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?

A single-resource read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description consisting only of the URL fragment leaves the agent without the minimum context needed to invoke it confidently (auth, response shape, sparse-fieldset behavior).

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_androidToIosAppMappingDetails' carry their own descriptions in the schema. With the schema doing all the work, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter semantics.

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 restates the tool name/HTTP route ('GET /v1/androidToIosAppMappingDetails/{id}') rather than describing in plain terms what is retrieved. It does reveal the operation is a read of a single androidToIosAppMappingDetails resource by id, but that is inferable from the name alone and adds no differentiation from sibling create/update/delete 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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling android_to_ios_app_mapping_details_create/update/delete_instance tools or the apps_android_to_ios_app_mapping_details_get_to_many relationship tool. Nothing indicates prerequisites or context.

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