apps_app_encryption_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 must carry behavioral context. The 'GET' prefix implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the relationship includes mean.

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 wastes its only sentence by duplicating the same endpoint path in parentheses. It is concise in length but poorly structured and under-informative.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should explain more about the relationship being fetched and how includes/filters work. The bare endpoint path is not complete enough for reliable selection or 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 the schema fully documents the 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the endpoint path, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 only repeats the HTTP endpoint 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/appEncryptionDeclarations' twice. An API-literate agent can infer that it lists encryption declarations for an app, but there is no plain-language purpose statement and no distinction from sibling endpoints such as the relationship variant or the collection endpoint.

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 is given about when to use this endpoint versus related tools like apps_app_encryption_declarations_get_to_many_relationship or app_encryption_declarations_get_collection. The description contains no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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