apps__app_availability_v2__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety behavior. It adds the endpoint and 'v2' version context but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, or response structure. This is consistent with annotations and meets the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 with the endpoint inline, containing zero fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description plus the schema are nearly sufficient. However, given the large sibling list and the lack of any statement about what the response contains or how this differs from similar tools, the description could be more complete.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not explain the return format or further clarify the 'include' behavior.

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 tool reads the app availability (v2) for a specific app, using the verb 'Read' and the exact endpoint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 'app_availabilities_v2__get', relying on the singular 'for an app' and the endpoint to imply the difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. The only usage hint (ID from a matching list call) appears in the include parameter's schema, not in the description itself, so the description lacks any explicit or implied usage direction.

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