beta_license_agreements__app__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint path [GET /v1/betaLicenseAgreements/{id}/app] as helpful context but does not disclose additional behaviors such as response format or error handling.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus the endpoint path. Every word adds value, and the core action and resource are immediately clear.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for a read operation. However, since there is no output schema, a note about the response containing the app resource would have been helpful for full completeness.

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 schema has one parameter 'id' with description 'ID from the matching list call.' Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides necessary context. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Read the app for a beta license agreement' clearly identifies the action (read) and resource (app) scoped to a beta license agreement, and the endpoint path confirms the relationship. It distinguishes from the sibling 'apps__beta_license_agreement__get' which does the inverse, though this is not explicitly stated.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'apps__beta_license_agreement__get' performs the inverse operation, but the description does not mention this or any other selection criteria.

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