beta_app_review_details_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 beyond the raw endpoint. It does not state that this is a read-only retrieval, whether it returns 404 for unknown ids, or what authentication/scope is required.

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 it is not concise in a useful sense – it duplicates the same path string twice and front-loads no purpose. Nothing in it earns its place beyond the schema's own information.

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 GET tool with relationship-inclusion and sparse-fieldset parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It omits the resource's meaning, the effect of include/fields_* parameters, and any return-shape 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%, and each of the four parameters (id, include, fields_apps, fields_betaAppReviewDetails) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies for high coverage with no description-level parameter detail.

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 HTTP method and path repeated twice ('GET /v1/betaAppReviewDetails/{id}'), which is effectively a restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of what a beta app review detail resource is or what fetching it yields. An agent can infer it retrieves a single resource by id, but gets no domain meaning and no differentiation from siblings like beta_app_review_details_get_collection.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as beta_app_review_details_get_collection or beta_app_review_details_app_get_to_one_related. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are stated.

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