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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so comprehensively. It discloses platform support limits, null return semantics with confidence levels and warning codes, failure reasons, relay fallback behavior, and response fields—providing rich behavioral context beyond typical tool definitions.

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 well-structured with headings (Platform support, Inputs, Returns) and front-loads the purpose. However, it redundantly repeats the platform enum and bundle_id example already present in the schema, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers platform support, all input parameters, return value semantics including edge cases, and failure modes. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must fully document parameters, and it does. It lists all three parameters with required status, examples, and added meaning (e.g., 'claimed_developer' is checked against the store listing).

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?

States a specific verb ('Verifies'), resource ('mobile or CTV app bundle ID'), scope ('actually exists in the relevant app store'), and purpose ('detect bundle spoofing in bid requests'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling verification tools like sigil_verify_domain by focusing on app bundles.

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?

Provides a clear context for use ('used to detect bundle spoofing in bid requests'), but does not explicitly name when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as sigil_verify_domain or sigil_verify_supply_chain. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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