background_asset_versions_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not authentication requirements, not pagination or rate limits, not what the include/fields_* parameters actually expand, and not whether the id must exist. The endpoint path alone is not 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?

It is short, but the only content is the same endpoint string repeated twice in parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than front-loaded purpose. It is under-specified, not 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?

For an 8-parameter GET with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies nothing an agent needs: no resource semantics, no note on sparse fieldsets or relationship expansion, and no return-value context.

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 every one of the 8 parameters documented in the schema (including the include and fields_* sparse-fieldset options), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about id format or how relationship inclusion interacts with the returned payload.

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 'GET /v1/backgroundAssetVersions/{id}', duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It restates what the tool name already encodes (get a background asset version by id) without adding any distinguishing detail versus siblings like background_assets_get_instance or background_asset_version_app_store_releases_get_instance.

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, when to prefer a sibling such as background_assets_versions_get_to_many_relationship, or what prerequisites (auth, existing id) apply.

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