app_availabilities_v2_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 delivers nothing beyond the word "GET". It says nothing about permissions, what relationships the include/fields parameters pull in, or whether the resource can be absent, despite the schema offering five query parameters that change the response 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 short but wastes its single line by duplicating the same path twice in parentheses, and the content is under-specified rather than concise. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is stated.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what an app availability represents and that the include/fields parameters expand related territoryAvailabilities. Neither is present, leaving the agent with only structured fields to work from.

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%: id, include, fields_appAvailabilities, limit_territoryAvailabilities and fields_territoryAvailabilities are each documented in the schema. The description adds zero additional meaning, 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 only restates the HTTP method and path already encoded in the tool name: "GET /v2/appAvailabilities/{id}". It conveys no natural-language statement of what an app availability resource is or how it differs from siblings like app_availabilities_v2_create_instance or the territory_availabilities relationship tools. This is tautological rather than clarifying.

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 exclusions, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this retrieves one app availability by id.

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