apps__beta_license_agreement__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 fully covered. The description adds 'Read' and the GET endpoint, which align with the annotations but add no additional behavioral context such as default behavior when no agreement exists or required permissions.

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 terse, information-bearing sentences: the action and the exact endpoint. Every part earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read operation with read-only and idempotent annotations, the description is complete. An agent can correctly invoke it by passing an app identifier, and the endpoint clarifies which resource is being fetched. No output schema exists, but the tool is simple enough that return-value details are not required for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, id, and the schema description covers 100% of its meaning: 'App name, bundle ID (com.example.app) or numeric Apple ID.' The main description does not need to repeat this, and the baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's full coverage.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'Read the beta license agreement for an app.' The endpoint path ['GET /v1/apps/{id}/betaLicenseAgreement'] makes it explicit that this is the app-scoped variant, distinguishing it from sibling beta_license_agreements__get by agreement ID. No ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 when to use this tool — when you need the beta license agreement for an app identified by its app ID. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as beta_license_agreements__get or beta_license_agreements__list, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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