apps_app_infos_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 delivers almost nothing: the URL implies a read of the appInfos collection for an app, but there is no mention of pagination, default page size, or auth requirements. Only the GET verb is inferable.

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 not in a useful way — the same route string is repeated twice, and nothing else is said. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient writing.

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 9-parameter collection-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent cannot get from the name: what the resource represents, pagination behavior, and how it differs from the sibling relationship tool.

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% across all 9 parameters (id, limit, include, fields_*), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no parameter context, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 HTTP route 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/appInfos', duplicated in parentheses. It restates the endpoint that the tool name already encodes rather than stating a verb and resource in prose, and it does nothing to separate this from the near-identical sibling apps_app_infos_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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. With siblings like apps_app_infos_get_to_many_relationship, app_infos_get_instance and apps_get_instance in the namespace, the agent gets no routing signal at all.

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