apps_alternative_distribution_key_get_to_one_relationship

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. The 'GET' prefix weakly implies a read-only fetch, but nothing is said about authentication, whether the relationship is nullable, what happens when no key is set, or shaping of the response. For a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

The string is short but not concise in any useful sense: the endpoint path is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses, which is pure waste with zero informational gain, and there is no plain-language lead sentence to front-load.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to explain what a 'to-one relationship' response contains, but it does not. Against a very large sibling set of near-identically named relationship tools, a bare path leaves the agent without enough information to call this correctly and confidently.

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?

Only one parameter ('id') exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema stating it is 'the id of the requested resource'. Per calibration, high schema coverage puts the baseline at 3 even though the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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 endpoint path 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/alternativeDistributionKey', repeated twice in parentheses. It encodes a verb (GET) and a resource (alternativeDistributionKey) but restates the tool name rather than explaining what the tool does in plain language, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as apps_alternative_distribution_key_get_to_one_related or alternative_distribution_keys_get_instance.

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 call this tool, what prerequisite identifiers are needed, or when to use a sibling instead. Notably, the closely related apps_alternative_distribution_key_get_to_one_related tool is never mentioned, so an agent has no basis for choosing between the relationship endpoint and the related-resource endpoint.

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