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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the shape/volume of the return payload (up to 90 daily snapshots) and a plan gate ('Requires an Indie plan'). It does not mention rate limits or freshness of the snapshots, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: scope and payload first, plan constraint second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so (store metadata, daily snapshots of rating, review count, version, installs), plus the plan requirement. An agent has enough to call it correctly and anticipate the response shape.

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 is 100% and the schema description already explains the app UUID versus a store id, including the sibling calls that produce it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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+resource ('Get full details for one tracked app') and scopes it to the caller's Sonar workspace, with a concrete preview of the payload (store metadata plus up to 90 daily snapshots). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as sonar_app_overview or sonar_app_lookup, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'one tracked app' and 'in the caller's Sonar workspace' suggest reading a single followed app, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites for tracking first, and no naming of the alternative tools (sonar_app_overview, sonar_app_lookup, sonar_list_apps).

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