apps_search_keywords_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 beyond the HTTP verb in the path. It does not mention pagination behavior despite a limit parameter, filtering semantics, permissions, or return shape for a tool with no output schema.

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 it is under-specified rather than concise, and the parenthetical merely duplicates the path verbatim. Two identical fragments earn no informational value.

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 parametrized GET-to-many tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum identify the resource and its relationship to the app. Instead it supplies only the endpoint string, leaving the agent unable to distinguish this from many near-identical siblings.

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% and all five parameters (id, limit, filter_locale, filter_platform, fields_appKeywords) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds zero meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to compensate for any coverage gap.

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 nothing but the raw REST path 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/searchKeywords' repeated twice in parentheses. It restates the endpoint rather than explaining that the tool retrieves the search keywords associated with a given app, and it gives no differentiation from the dozens of sibling search-keyword and to-many related endpoints.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what conditions select it, or which sibling to prefer (e.g. app_store_version_localizations_search_keywords_get_to_many_related). The agent is given nothing to route on.

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