app_infos_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, yet it discloses nothing: no safety profile, no read-only indication, no rate limits, and no note on what the endpoint returns. The parenthetical path duplication adds no behavioral context at all.

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 length is wasted: the path is repeated verbatim inside parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than useful concision. Nothing meaningful is front-loaded for the agent.

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-instance tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least identify the resource and its role. It says nothing about what an appInfo represents or what fields/relationships are returned, leaving a substantial gap.

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%, with all 8 parameters (id, include, fields_*, limits) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'GET /v1/appInfos/{id} (GET /v1/appInfos/{id})', which merely restates the tool name and HTTP path in tautological form. It never explains what an 'appInfo' resource actually is or what the agent gets back, and it does not distinguish this tool from the numerous sibling app_infos_* relationship 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. With siblings like app_infos_update_instance, app_infos_app_info_localizations_get_to_many_relationship, and apps_app_infos_get_to_many_related, an agent gets no signal about selection conditions.

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