apps_app_infos_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 of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), what the 'relationship' variant returns, or whether results are cached/eventually consistent. The path string adds zero behavioral context.

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 single sentence is short but entirely wasted: the path appears twice in immediate parentheses, which is duplication rather than concision. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose to earn the space the text takes.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape (relationship linkage objects vs. full resources) and paging semantics, but it explains neither. It is marginally better than the worst case only because the schema is fully documented and simple.

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%, with both id ('the id of the requested resource') and limit ('maximum resources per page') documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas is 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 is just the raw HTTP path echoed twice, with no plain-language statement of purpose. It restates information already implied by the tool name (apps_app_infos_get_to_many_relationship), so an agent learning nothing new about what the tool returns or how it differs from the sibling apps_app_infos_get_to_many_related.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical sibling apps_app_infos_get_to_many_related (relationship vs related). The only signal is the endpoint path, from which an experienced agent could infer this returns linkage identifiers only, but that is inference, not guidance.

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