app_preview_sets_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 authentication or scope requirements, no note that this is a safe read, no pagination/limit behavior, no indication of what happens when the id does not exist. The single token 'GET' is already implied by the name.

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 short by omission rather than by efficiency. The parenthetical re-states the identical route string, which is pure redundancy, and no sentence in the description earns its place by adding information.

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 an 8-parameter sparse-fieldset endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides none of the context an agent needs: it does not explain that include/fields_* control response shape, nor what resource is returned. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 8 documented parameters (id, include, limit_appPreviews, and five fields_* sparse-fieldset selectors), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how to combine include with fields_* or what the enum values yield, but the schema itself does the documentation work.

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 a bare restatement of the route and duplicates itself verbatim in parentheses: 'GET /v1/appPreviewSets/{id} (GET /v1/appPreviewSets/{id})'. It only conveys the HTTP verb and resource path, which the tool name already encodes, so it is effectively a tautology rather than an explanation of what the tool returns or why an agent would call it.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the many sibling tools that retrieve the same or related preview data (e.g. app_preview_sets_app_previews_get_to_many_related, app_previews_get_instance, app_store_version_localizations_app_preview_sets_get_to_many_related). An agent has nothing to route on.

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