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 safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context (the exact REST endpoint and the v2 version marker) but discloses nothing about response shape, pagination, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, and the endpoint reference is a compact, high-value addition that confirms the HTTP operation and path.

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?

Adequate for a simple read operation whose annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, and where the endpoint implies the return type. However, it is incomplete regarding sibling disambiguation — the existence of `app_availabilities_v2__get` is a real ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the useful note on `include` avoiding extra calls. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the endpoint's `{id}` placeholder, which merely mirrors the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('app availability (v2) for an app'), and the endpoint path adds concrete specificity. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling `app_availabilities_v2__get`, so an agent cannot easily tell which of the two to select without further investigation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like `app_availabilities_v2__get`, `app_availabilities_v2__create`, and `app_availabilities_v2__territory_availabilities__list`, the absence of any routing hints or exclusions leaves the agent to infer context.

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