apps__alternative_distribution_key__get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read' and the HTTP endpoint, which is consistent but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 followed by the HTTP endpoint. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every element 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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description, combined with annotations, fully covers the necessary context. No additional information is expected.

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 the single 'id' parameter, which is described as 'Resource identifier.' The tool description adds no further information about the parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles semantics.

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 the alternative distribution key for an app.' This explicitly identifies the verb (read), the resource (alternative distribution key), and the scope (for an app). It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools like alternative_distribution_keys__create, delete, and list without ambiguity.

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 context as a simple read operation. While it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, the sibling names (create, delete, list, get) make it clear that this is the 'get' variant. No exclusions or prerequisites are needed for such a straightforward tool.

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