beta_license_agreements__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with these. The description adds the HTTP GET path and the 'by ID' scoping, but no further behavioral traits such as error handling, return format, or rate limits. Given the annotations, the description adds minimal but acceptable extra 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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and target. It includes the endpoint URL for reference, adding valuable context without unnecessary words. Zero waste.

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?

This is a simple GET-by-ID tool with strong annotations and comprehensive schema descriptions. The description, while brief, is sufficient for the tool's simplicity: it reads one resource by ID. No output schema exists, but the return value is the beta license agreement as implied by the resource name and the read operation. Sibling tools provide additional context for related operations.

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_betaLicenseAgreements) having a meaningful description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond saying 'by ID', which aligns with the required id parameter. Since the schema carries the parameter explanation, 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 'Read one beta license agreement by ID' with the specific verb 'Read', the resource 'beta license agreement', and the scope 'by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like beta_license_agreements__list (reads all) and beta_license_agreements__update (mutates). The HTTP endpoint is also provided, reinforcing 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 is for fetching a single agreement when an ID is available, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs alternatives such as the list tool or the related app get tool. The schema's id parameter description ('ID from the matching list call') provides context, but the description itself lacks explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance.

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