android_to_ios_app_mapping_details__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description simply says 'Read,' which is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context like return size, pagination, or permission requirements. The size warning appears in the schema parameter description, not the tool description.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and includes the HTTP endpoint for clarity. No unnecessary words.

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?

With readOnly/idempotent annotations and a fully described schema, the tool is adequately specified for a simple get-by-ID operation. The description is minimal but sufficient, and the ID parameter's reference to the list call helps complete the context. No output schema is present, but none is needed for a read operation.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters clearly described: id as 'ID from the matching list call' and fields as selectable attributes with a note about the 200 KB row size. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, relying fully on the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 states 'Read one android to iOS app mapping detail by ID,' which clearly identifies the action (read) and resource (android-to-iOS mapping detail). This differentiates it from sibling tools like the create/update/delete variants and the list tool, which serve different purposes. The endpoint path reinforces the scope.

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?

The description implies usage via 'by ID' but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. The schema's id parameter description 'ID from the matching list call' provides some context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance on choosing this tool over the list or other mapping tools.

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