apps__end_user_license_agreement__get

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

The description is consistent with the readOnly and idempotent annotations, but adds no behavioral context beyond them: no note on response shape, absence behavior, or auth requirements. It simply restates the read operation with an endpoint.

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 short sentence followed by a compact endpoint reference. Every element earns its place, and the main verb and resource are 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, safely annotated read operation, the description plus schema is enough to select and invoke correctly. The only minor gap is not stating what the response contains or explicitly routing away from end_user_license_agreements__get, which is mitigated by the app-scoped wording.

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%, and the id parameter already documents accepted formats (app name, bundle ID, or numeric Apple ID), so the description need not add parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the meaning.

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 specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('end user license agreement for an app'), and the exact endpoint. This separates it from sibling tools like end_user_license_agreements__get by making the app-scoped relationship explicit.

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 on when to choose this over sibling tools such as end_user_license_agreements__get or when not to use it. The implied context is reading an app's EULA, but there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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