apps_alternative_distribution_key_get_to_one_related

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 note that this is a read-only lookup, no scoping or error behavior. It is a bare endpoint string.

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 content is a duplicated route string repeated in parentheses, so the single sentence does not earn its place by conveying any information beyond the tool name.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that is only an endpoint path, nothing explains the return value or the operation's semantics for this read tool. The definition is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 both the 'id' and 'fields_alternativeDistributionKeys' parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning 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 only the raw HTTP route 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/alternativeDistributionKey', which essentially restates the tool name rather than describing the operation in plain language. An agent can infer it fetches an alternative distribution key for an app, but there is no elaboration of what that resource is or how it differs from the sibling apps_alternative_distribution_key_get_to_one_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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical 'relationship' sibling that also targets the same app resource. Nothing tells the agent which of the two to pick.

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