apps_app_clips_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 burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only paginated list, not the pagination mechanics (limit), not that filters/field selection shrink the payload. Only the word GET weakly implies read-only.

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 it is vacuous rather than concise: the single sentence is the raw route echoed twice, so no sentence contributes information an agent could act on.

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 an eight-parameter list endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the returned collection and the effect of include/fields/limit. It does none of this, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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 all eight parameters (id, limit, include, fields_*, filter_bundleId, limit_appClipDefaultExperiences) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond that, 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 verbatim restatement of the HTTP path ("GET /v1/apps/{id}/appClips"), duplicated twice. It conveys that appClips are retrieved for an app id, but it is tautological rather than a plain-language statement of purpose and offers nothing to distinguish it from siblings like apps_app_clips_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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the closely named apps_app_clips_get_to_many_relationship, app_clips_get_instance, or app_clips_app_clip_default_experiences_get_to_many_related. The agent is left to infer everything from the identifier.

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