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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get details' without explicitly confirming it is a safe read-only operation, what happens if the app does not exist, or any other behavioral expectations. The word 'get' weakly implies read-only, but this is not a substitute for clear disclosure.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, with every word earning its place.

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?

Despite being a simple one-parameter getter, the tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain what 'details' are returned. It does not, leaving a significant gap for the agent to decide if calling this tool will yield the needed information.

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 coverage for the single parameter appId is 100% (type and description provided). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 action (get) and resource (app), and 'specific app' distinguishes it from list_apps. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it differs from sibling getters for other entity types.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_apps or other get_* tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when this tool is preferred, so the agent has no explicit decision support.

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