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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it confirms non-destructive read-only search (aligning with readOnlyHint), reveals that results are returned in store ranking order, and transparently states the free tier has limited daily use per IP. This provides concrete operational information an agent needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds a key behavioral detail (ranking order), and the third provides important operational constraint (free tier limits). Perfectly front-loaded and every sentence earns 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?

For a search tool with no output schema and good schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It covers supported stores, result ordering, and rate-limiting context. It misses mentioning what the output looks like (e.g., includes app IDs, icons, etc.), but since the output format is implied by 'metadata' and agents can infer from context, this is acceptable. With sibling tools, it could note alternatives for detailed app info (like sonar_app_lookup), but not required for completeness.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning: it mentions the store parameter conceptually ('App Store or Google Play') and provides an example keyword, but this largely echoes the schema. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate for not going beyond.

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 'Search apps' with the specific resource 'App Store or Google Play by keyword'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on search across stores, which is unique among the listed siblings that target specific apps, screenshots, keywords, or analytics. However, it could be clearer about how it differs from 'sonar_keyword_search' and 'sonar_keyword_suggestions', but overall it's specific and functional.

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 implies usage for general app discovery by keyword. It mentions results are in store ranking order, which hints at when to use it (for standard ranking). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., for detailed analytics, competitor analysis, or lookup of a specific app). The context about free tier and daily limits is operational but not comparative.

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