app_clip_header_images__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'Read one... by ID' scope and the specific endpoint, which clarifies the operation's reach. It does not contradict any annotation and provides useful behavioral context (single-item read, not a list or mutation).

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 includes the operation, resource, and endpoint. There is zero wasted wording, and it is front-loaded with the core action 'Read one App Clip header image by ID'.

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?

This is a simple single-resource GET with no output schema and full schema descriptions for all parameters. The description covers the tool's purpose adequately, and with annotations providing safety details, the minimal description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explicitly mention any error behavior or response structure, which is a minor gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 three parameters (id, include, fields_appClipHeaderImages) having descriptive text. The tool description itself contributes no additional parameter semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states 'Read one App Clip header image by ID', specifying the exact verb (read), resource (App Clip header image), and scope (by ID). It inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and update, and is precise about what operation the tool performs.

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 (when you have an ID and need a single header image) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It relies on the id parameter description in the schema ('ID from the matching list call') for context on prerequisites, but the description itself offers no direct guidance on usage compared to list or update tools.

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