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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description merely says 'Return,' which is consistent and adds no extra behavioral details. It does not contradict annotations, but it also doesn't add value beyond what annotations provide, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the verb 'Return' and clearly states what is returned. Every word adds value, making it appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose by specifying that it returns editor preview and published/public URLs. It doesn't detail the return format or error cases, but for a read-only URL fetcher, this is sufficient. The presence of siblings like get_app_links makes the description more complete than a generic 'get URLs' description, earning a 4.

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 app_id already described as 'The app ID.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, such as format, validation, or how it influences the result. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is correct; the description adds no extra clarity.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'editor preview and published/public URLs for an app.' It is specific about what is returned, distinguishing this from a generic 'get links' tool by specifying preview and public URLs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_app_links, so it doesn't fully eliminate ambiguity, but the purpose is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context for when this tool is preferable. Given that siblings like get_app_links, inspect_preview, and get_app_detail exist, the description offers no help in selecting this specific tool.

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