apps__alternative_distribution_key__get

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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations fully cover the safety profile, and the 'Read' verb plus GET method are consistent with those annotations. The description adds no extra behavioral detail such as authentication or return behavior, but nothing contradicts the 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 with the endpoint reference, and it front-loads the core action and resource. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 read operation with strong annotations, the definition is largely self-sufficient. The main missing piece is a note distinguishing it from the similar alternative_distribution_keys__get sibling, and a brief indication of what the response contains would be helpful without an 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?

The input schema fully documents the single required parameter, id, including acceptable formats like app name, bundle ID, or numeric Apple ID. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific operation: read an app's alternative distribution key, and includes the exact GET endpoint. It clearly separates this from creation, deletion, and update siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similarly named alternative_distribution_keys__get.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like alternative_distribution_keys__get or alternative_distribution_keys__list. The only implicit signal is 'for an app' and the {id} path parameter, which is not enough given the large number of similar sibling tools.

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