app_encryption_declarations__app_encryption_declaration_d_0az88b

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds the HTTP endpoint path, which is useful context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format, download type, or any special handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 followed by the HTTP path. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary verbosity.

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 one-parameter GET operation with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the resource and operation. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., whether it's a binary document download), which could be relevant for an agent handling the response.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter ('ID from the matching list call'), which already explains its meaning. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 the operation (read) and the resource (app encryption declaration document) with the scope 'for an app encryption declaration'. The HTTP path reinforces this, and the phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like app_encryption_declarations__get (which returns the declaration itself) and app_encryption_declaration_documents__get (which likely fetches by document ID).

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 use case is implied: you have an app encryption declaration ID and want its document. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives like app_encryption_declaration_documents__get, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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