beta_app_review_submissions_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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, that it requires an existing submission id, what authentication is needed, or what happens on an invalid id. The bare HTTP path is the only signal.

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 single sentence is wasted effort: the same path string appears twice in a row with no added information. It is short but structurally redundant rather than concise — nothing is front-loaded because nothing substantive is said.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would need to characterize the returned resource, and it does not. Combined with zero annotations and no explanation of the include/fields query parameters, the definition is materially incomplete for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 four parameters (id, include, fields_builds, fields_betaAppReviewSubmissions) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning — it does not explain the sparse-fieldset or relationship-inclusion semantics, but it is not required to when the schema is this complete.

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 only the raw HTTP path 'GET /v1/betaAppReviewSubmissions/{id}' repeated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys the verb and resource by accident of naming convention, not by explanation — an agent learns nothing about what a beta app review submission actually is or what fetching one returns. This is close to tautology, though the path does at least disambiguate it from the sibling create/collection 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 whatsoever about when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as beta_app_review_submissions_get_collection, beta_app_review_submissions_create_instance, or builds_beta_app_review_submission_get_to_one_related. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions.

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