beta_app_clip_invocations_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, yet it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or what a successful response contains. For a read of a single resource it is silent on every behavioral trait.

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 parenthetical repeats the exact same endpoint string, which is pure redundancy rather than conciseness. The brevity comes from under-specification, not from efficient front-loading of useful content.

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?

A five-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool needs the description to explain returns and usage context, and it supplies none. An agent cannot call this confidently beyond guessing the endpoint semantics.

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 all five parameters (id, include, sparse fieldsets, and limit) documented in the schema itself. Per the baseline rule, the schema does the heavy lifting, so a 3 is appropriate even though the description contributes nothing.

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 only restates the tool name as an HTTP path: "GET /v1/betaAppClipInvocations/{id}". It does reveal the verb and resource, so it is not entirely opaque, but it adds nothing beyond the name and offers no differentiation from the many sibling get-instance tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the collection or relationship endpoints. The agent is left to infer everything from the path.

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