apps__beta_license_agreement__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the endpoint but no additional behavioral context such as response shape or error cases. With annotations covering the core traits, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 just two short pieces of text: a one-sentence statement of purpose and the endpoint. Every word earns its place, and the essential information 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 simple read-only, single-parameter tool with strong annotations and a clear endpoint, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention what the response contains or differentiate from beta_license_agreements__get, but the current level is sufficient for safe 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('ID from the matching list call'), and the endpoint path reinforces that 'id' is the app id. The description does not add further parameter semantics, but the schema alone sufficiently documents the single parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') and a specific resource ('beta license agreement for an app'), and includes the REST endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beta_license_agreements__get and apps__get by indicating it retrieves the agreement through the app's relationship.

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 and parameter hint imply usage: given an app ID from a list call, fetch that app's beta license agreement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like beta_license_agreements__get or beta_license_agreements__list, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over those sibling tools.

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