app_asset_library_placements_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: not what a placement resource contains, not auth or scope requirements, not error behavior for missing ids, and not how the many include/fields query options change the result.

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?

The description is very short, which is good, but the same GET route is duplicated in parentheses with zero added information, so part of the already-minimal text is pure waste. It is front-loaded only in the sense that there is nothing else to load.

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 9-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essentially no context an agent could use. The schema documents the query parameters, but nothing explains the returned placement resource or the semantics of expanded relationships, which the description should at least gesture at.

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 all 9 parameters (id, include, and seven sparse fieldsets) are documented directly in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to compensate for any gap either.

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 the raw endpoint route repeated twice — 'GET /v1/appAssetLibraryPlacements/{id} (GET /v1/appAssetLibraryPlacements/{id})'. It restates the tool name/operation rather than stating in plain terms what is fetched or why, and it makes no attempt to distinguish this single-resource read from siblings like app_asset_library_placements_create_instance or app_asset_libraries_images_get_to_many_related.

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 use this tool, what precondition (a valid placement id) applies, or which alternative to prefer when the caller wants placements for an image/video/app instead. Only the GET verb implies a read, which is the barest implicit signal.

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