apps_app_availability_v2_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 embedded 'GET' implies a safe read, which is the only behavioral signal offered; nothing is said about authentication requirements, caching, error behavior, or the shape/format of the returned relationship data.

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 description is short but degenerates into verbatim duplication of the same route string twice, so half its content is wasted. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least say what resource is returned and how it relates to the parent app. Neither is provided, leaving the agent to infer everything from the URL slug.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as the requested resource. The description adds no format, ID-type, or source information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 HTTP route, which does convey the verb (GET) and the resource (the appAvailabilityV2 relationship of a specific app). It is minimally informative but adds nothing beyond the tool name, and it does not distinguish this from the sibling apps_app_availability_v2_get_to_one_related beyond the 'relationship' vs 'related' wording.

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 whatsoever on when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The only content is the URL, which the agent could already derive from the name.

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