apps__app_price_schedule__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's 'Read' and GET endpoint are consistent and add mild context, but they don't reveal behavior beyond the annotations, such as auth requirements, pagination, or relationship-fetching caveats.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, plus a compact endpoint reference. No filler or redundant wording. Every phrase 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 low-complexity read tool, the description plus schema and annotations is nearly sufficient: id and include are documented, the endpoint is explicit, and the read-only behavior is annotated. No output schema exists, but the resource name and endpoint make the return focus reasonably clear. The only real gap is alternative-usage guidance, which is already captured in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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 fully documents both parameters: id and include. The endpoint string hints that id goes in the path, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('Read'), a specific resource ('app price schedule'), and the target ('for an app'). The appended endpoint further disambiguates the exact operation. The resource name is unique enough among siblings to distinguish it from pricing tools like pricing__get_subscription_price.

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 on when to use this tool versus related pricing or schedule tools. The description only says 'for an app,' which does not help an agent choose among the many sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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