app_store_version_experiments_get_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that the operation is a GET and is deprecated. It says nothing about what is returned, whether includes/field selection are safe, auth requirements, or why deprecation matters. The deprecation notice is the sole piece of behavioral context.

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, which is good, but the content is redundantly duplicated inside the parentheses ('(GET /v1/appStoreVersionExperiments/{id})'), adding characters without adding meaning. Front-loading the deprecation notice is a plus, but the whole line is essentially filler.

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 6-parameter instance-fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It never explains the resource, the effect of the include/fields parameters, or where to go instead given the deprecation. An agent could call it, but has no real understanding of what it gets back.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (id, include, three fields_* filters, and the limit). The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 a restatement of the tool name as a REST path ('GET /v1/appStoreVersionExperiments/{id}'), which is essentially tautological rather than an explanation of what an app store version experiment is or what the call returns. The '[DEPRECATED]' tag adds a small amount of signal, but there is no plain-language statement of purpose. It does at least convey read (GET) semantics for a single resource.

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?

The only usage signal is '[DEPRECATED]', which implies the agent should avoid it, but the description never names the replacement (e.g. app_store_version_experiments_v2_get_instance) despite that sibling existing. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing between v1 and v2.

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