apps_performance_overviews_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 of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no mention of pagination, rate limits, permissions, or what the collection represents. It repeats the endpoint string rather than adding any 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 text is short but consists of a single duplicated path string with redundant parentheses, adding no information and no front-loaded explanation. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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, no output schema, and no descriptive text beyond the endpoint, an agent has no information about the return payload, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a collection-fetch tool this is completely inadequate.

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 'id' and 'filter_deviceType' both documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or accepted values beyond what the schema already states.

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 merely restates the HTTP path 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/performanceOverviews' twice, which at best names the resource but explains nothing about what a performance overview is or what data it returns. It offers no differentiation from closely named siblings such as apps_perf_power_metrics_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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., an app id must be valid), or what alternatives exist among the many 'get_to_many_related' siblings.

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