app_clips_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. The 'GET' verb implicitly signals a read-only, idempotent fetch, which is minimal value, but nothing is said about authentication, error behavior when the id is invalid, or the sparse-fieldset/include semantics of the query parameters.

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 redundant restatement of the tool name and route rather than an under-specification-free summary. Brevity here comes from omission, not from efficient phrasing.

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 tool exposing relationship includes and sparse fieldsets with no output schema, the description should explain what is returned and how include/fields interact. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone.

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 six parameters (id, include, fields_*, limit_*) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about how these parameters behave, 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 just the raw route 'GET /v1/appClips/{id}' repeated twice. It restates what the tool name (app_clips_get_instance) already encodes rather than stating in words what the tool does or which resource it returns. It gives no differentiation from the many sibling app_clip* 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as app_clips_app_clip_default_experiences_get_to_many_relationship or app_clip_default_experiences_get_instance. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions.

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