app_store_version_experiment_treatments__get

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the endpoint and confirms the read nature, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling, authorization requirements, or default response size. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope, followed by the endpoint. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail—every word earns its place.

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 get-by-ID tool with strong annotations and complete schema descriptions, the description is adequate. It could explicitly state what is returned (e.g., the treatment object and optional relationships) or mention the include parameter, but the schema already covers that. Overall, it is nearly complete for selection and invocation.

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% for all three parameters (id, include, fields_appStoreVersionExperimentTreatments). The description itself only repeats 'by ID' and does not add meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents parameter semantics, the baseline score 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 the action ('Read'), the target resource ('App Store version experiment treatment'), and the scope ('by ID'), distinguishing it from list/create/update/delete siblings in the tool set. It also includes the exact REST endpoint for additional disambiguation.

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 a specific ID and need a single treatment, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like listing all treatments or when to use create/update/delete. No exclusionary guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb and resource.

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