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

With readOnlyHint already declared, the description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the scope-propagation workflow, the pagination contract ('next_cursor and unchanged query'), and what specific operations return (uploadOperations, report URLs). 'This tool only reads' merely restates the annotation, but the surrounding behavioral detail is genuinely additive.

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?

Five compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by actionable operational rules; nothing is wasted. It is slightly dense and terse, which costs a point on readability but not on economy.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations covering safety, and the description still supplies the non-obvious pieces an agent needs: how to start, how to chain scope, how to paginate, and when raw IDs are allowed. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning: scope must be seeded with [] and copied from prior results, cursor requires unchanged other arguments, and resource_id is valid only for global lookups. This clarifies how parameters interact rather than restating their types.

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 states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('a discovered Apple GET operation') and scopes it to the linked app, so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_store_operation or get_store_capabilities, which would have earned a 5.

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?

It gives concrete entry conditions ('Begin with an apps_* relationship and scope:[]'), a chaining rule for follow-up calls, and a restriction ('Raw IDs are accepted only for global lookups'). It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool, so it is strong context without explicit alternatives.

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