beta_app_review_details__app__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read. It adds the HTTP method and endpoint, but does not describe return format or any other behavioral traits. This adds some value beyond annotations but lacks rich context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource, with the endpoint in brackets. There is no wasted wording, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 relationship retrieval with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly identifies the resource and includes the endpoint, and the parameter description provides necessary usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention what the response contains (e.g., an App object), which would make it slightly more complete.

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?

The single parameter is fully described in the schema ('ID from the matching list call'), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The main description does not add any additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Read') and the specific resource ('the app') in the context of 'a beta app review detail', distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch the review detail itself or other related resources. The included HTTP path further confirms the purpose.

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 usage when you need the app for a given beta app review detail, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like apps__beta_app_review_detail__get. The parameter description hints at a prerequisite (ID from a list call), but this is in the schema, not the main description.

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