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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the answer is fed by a background scan and "coverage null means it has just started," which tells the agent results may be incomplete on first call — a real operational caveat.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the parameter list, then the return shape. It is a dense single paragraph that is slightly overlong (the proof.recentReviews/proof.ratingsRising detail is heavy), but nearly every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the key signals (ratingsRising, recentReviews, terms with source, 0–100 score) and warns about coverage null. Combined with annotations covering safety, nothing needed to call this correctly 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 every parameter is already documented, including defaults and ranges. The description only restates the role of genre/min_ratings/min_days and omits limit entirely, adding little meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema.

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States a specific, unusual resource — apps that are no longer updated but still get ratings/searches — with an example query. That resource is unmistakably distinct from siblings like app_tracker_charts, app_tracker_lookup or app_tracker_opportunities, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

"Use this when the user wants app ideas from apps that are no longer updated but still found and rated" gives an explicit trigger condition plus a concrete example query. It does not, however, state when to prefer a sibling (e.g. app_tracker_opportunities) or any exclusion, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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