beta_app_review_details__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 clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Read one' and the HTTP endpoint. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or response structure, but given the simple read-only nature, this is acceptable; no additional non-obvious behaviors are disclosed.

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 sentence plus an HTTP endpoint notation. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 operation with a clear ID parameter, the description conveys the essential purpose. There is no output schema, but the description doesn't explain return values. However, the tool's name and the resource concept are self-explanatory, and the schema covers parameters. It is slightly minimal but sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter (id, include, fields_betaAppReviewDetails) having descriptive text. The description only mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the required 'id' parameter but adds nothing new. The schema already documents the parameters, 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 'Read one beta app review detail by ID' which specifies a concrete action (read) on a specific resource (beta app review detail) with a focus on a single item via ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beta_app_review_details__list (which reads multiple) and beta_app_review_details__update (which modifies).

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 have a known ID and need a single beta app review detail. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or list when not to use it, but the 'by ID' phrasing provides clear context that this is for single-item reads, making it distinct from list operations.

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