app_availabilities_v2__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read. The description aligns with those annotations by starting with 'Read,' but adds no extra behavioral context beyond the endpoint; this is acceptable for a simple GET but not a rich disclosure.

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 sentence that states the operation, resource, and endpoint with no filler or redundant clauses. It is front-loaded with the actionable verb and resource, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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 simple read-by-id tool, the description plus annotations and fully documented schema provide enough to select and invoke the tool. It lacks explicit error/not-found behavior or output details, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of a GET make this a minor gap.

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 the input schema already explains that id comes from a matching list call, that include is a comma-separated relationship list, and that fields limits the returned attributes. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Read one app availabilities (v2) by ID,' which names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('app availabilities v2'), and a clear scope ('one ... by ID'). It also includes the REST endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling list/create tools like app_availabilities_v2__territory_availabilities__list.

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 the tool is for fetching a single availability record when an ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of the related list or territory-availability tools. The schema notes that the ID comes from a matching list call, but that guidance is not in the description itself, leaving usage context implicit.

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