app_encryption_declarations_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: no auth/permission requirements, no pagination or include-behavior notes, no indication of what the resource represents. The HTTP verb alone is all that is communicated.

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 not concise in a useful sense: the same route string is printed twice in parentheses, wasting the only content it has. There is no front-loaded purpose statement, only a route template.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It conveys neither what the tool returns nor how to use the include/fields/limit parameters meaningfully.

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 7 parameters (id, include, fields_*, limit_builds), so the schema already documents each one thoroughly. The description adds nothing beyond the path template, but the baseline of 3 applies 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 only restates the tool name as an HTTP route: 'GET /v1/appEncryptionDeclarations/{id}', duplicated parenthetically. An agent can infer a single-resource fetch, but there is no prose describing what an app encryption declaration is or how this differs from siblings like app_encryption_declarations_get_collection or the many *_get_to_one_related variants. This is a tautology of the name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as app_encryption_declarations_get_collection, app_encryption_declarations_app_get_to_one_related, and app_encryption_declarations_builds_create_to_many_relationship, the agent gets no help choosing this tool.

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