app_encryption_declarations_get_collection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The only behavioral signal is the implicit GET verb (read-only, non-destructive); pagination behavior, auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and the include/filter interaction are all unstated.

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 parenthetical repeats the preceding text word-for-word, so one of the two segments earns nothing. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficient communication.

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 10-parameter collection endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs at least what resource is being listed and how the collection/relationship variants differ. Neither is provided; the agent must infer everything from the name and 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% across all 10 parameters, so the schema already documents limit, include, filter_app, filter_builds, filter_platform, and the various fields_* selectors. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 HTTP verb and path ("GET /v1/appEncryptionDeclarations") duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It restates the tool name without saying what an app encryption declaration is or what the list returns, so it is effectively a tautology rather than an explanation of purpose.

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 collection endpoint versus siblings such as app_encryption_declarations_get_instance (single record) or apps_app_encryption_declarations_get_to_many_related (fetching declarations scoped to one app). No prerequisites, no filtering context, no exclusions.

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