apps_accessibility_declarations_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The 'GET' token does imply a non-mutating read, which is the only behavioral signal present, but nothing is said about pagination (a limit parameter exists), filter behavior, permissions, or result shape for what is a collection endpoint.

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 path verbatim, so a large fraction of the text is pure duplication that carries zero information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 five-parameter list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies neither the collection semantics (paging, filtering, default fields) nor the response shape. The schema covers the parameters adequately, but an agent still cannot tell what this call returns or how it differs from its relationship-named twin.

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%: id, limit, filter_state, filter_deviceFamily, and fields_accessibilityDeclarations are each documented in the schema, including enum values and the default field set. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 the raw HTTP path duplicated in parentheses ('GET /v1/apps/{id}/accessibilityDeclarations (GET /v1/apps/{id}/accessibilityDeclarations)') with no verb describing the operation. An agent can only infer 'list accessibility declarations for an app' from the path segment names. This is effectively a restatement of the tool name rather than a statement of purpose, and it does nothing to distinguish it from the near-identical sibling apps_accessibility_declarations_get_to_many_relationship.

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. This is especially damaging here because the sibling list contains both apps_accessibility_declarations_get_to_many_related and apps_accessibility_declarations_get_to_many_relationship, and the description offers nothing to help an agent choose between them.

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