apps_app_events_get_to_many_relationship

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether this is read-only, whether pagination beyond the 'limit' param applies, what permissions are needed, or what the response shape is. For a GET relationship endpoint with zero structured behavioral hints, this is a complete 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?

Short, but wasteful rather than concise: the same endpoint string is duplicated inside parentheses, adding no information. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns or why to use it.

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 relationship read endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain what the call returns and how the relationship listing behaves (pagination, ordering). Instead it provides only the URL, leaving the agent with nothing about the operation's semantics.

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% – both 'id' and 'limit' are documented in the schema itself. Per the baseline rule, a fully documented schema earns a 3 even when the description adds no parameter detail, which is the case here.

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 just the raw HTTP path restated verbatim, twice: 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/appEvents'. It encodes a verb and resource path, but conveys nothing beyond what the tool name already implies and gives zero differentiation from the many sibling relationship tools (e.g. apps_app_events_get_to_many_related). It is effectively a restatement of the identifier, not an explanation.

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 alternatives. With ~800 siblings, including the near-identical apps_app_events_get_to_many_related, there is nothing telling the agent which to pick. The description provides no context, no exclusions, no prerequisites.

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