end_user_license_agreements_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: no auth/permission requirements, no error behavior for a missing id, no note that this is a non-mutating read. The bare HTTP verb is the only hint, and it is already implied by the tool name.

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 short but not efficient: it repeats the identical endpoint string twice in a redundant parenthetical, which costs tokens without adding information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 6-parameter resource fetch with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies essentially nothing beyond the path. The only implicit content is that the operation is a read keyed on id, leaving return shape, includable relationships, and failure modes entirely to inference.

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 6 parameters (id, include, fields_apps, limit_territories, fields_territories, fields_endUserLicenseAgreements) documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about sparse fieldsets, relationship inclusion, or the territories limit, but the schema already handles that.

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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name and endpoint path ('GET /v1/endUserLicenseAgreements/{id}'), with the parenthetical duplicating the same string. It conveys only that a single end-user license agreement is fetched by id, adding no distinguishing detail versus sibling tools like end_user_license_agreements_territories_get_to_many_related or apps_end_user_license_agreement_get_to_one_related.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent gets no signal about when this single-resource fetch is preferable to the collection or relationship variants that share the same namespace.

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