Appside Developer Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of real information — that only 'published' fees are returned, implying custom/negotiated pricing is not included — but says nothing about currency, units, or refresh cadence.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning and nothing is buried.

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 and no annotations describing returns, the description leaves the shape of the response (currency, percentage vs. fixed amounts, per-method breakdown) entirely unknown. For a pricing lookup that an agent will likely need to interpret numerically, this is a meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('Appside published payment fee and fixed-fee policy'). An agent can immediately tell this returns fee/policy data, and it does not overlap with the siblings (get_sdk_snippet, search_docs), so no differentiation is really needed.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any precondition (e.g., 'call before computing transaction costs'). The usage is only inferable from the name and resource, which is minimal guidance for a zero-parameter lookup.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes documented verification status and a gating rule about granting items only on verified backend delivery, but it does not explain the return format or how verification status is determined.

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 definition is short and front-loads the retrieval action in the first sentence. The second sentence is terse but its relationship to the retrieval result is somewhat ambiguous, keeping it from being fully efficient.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one enum parameter and annotations covering safety, and the description names the returned components: an SDK example and verification status. However, it omits the meaning of the platform parameter and does not clarify what verification status represents, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 sole parameter, platform, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The enum values show allowed platforms, but the description adds no meaning about platform selection, required behavior, or defaults, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 and resource: 'Get a repository SDK example and its documented verification status.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from get_pricing and search_docs by resource, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_docs or get_pricing. The sentence about granting items only on verified backend delivery is a policy statement, not a clear invocation condition for this retrieval tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the searched corpus (public developer Markdown) and the return shape (source links and excerpts); only ranking, result-count limits, and rate limits are left unstated.

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 compact sentence with the action and corpus front-loaded and the return information trailing. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and an explicit statement of what is returned, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is behavioral detail around result limits and query formulation, which an agent would likely want.

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?

With a single parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load; it does specify the corpus being queried, which implies the query should be documentation-style text. It adds nothing about length limits (schema caps at 200 chars), keyword vs natural-language behavior, or matching semantics.

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 (Search) plus a specific resource and corpus (Appside public developer Markdown), and discloses what comes back (source links and excerpts). It is clearly distinct from siblings get_pricing and get_sdk_snippet in kind, though it does not name them to reinforce the split.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is for broad documentation lookup while get_pricing and get_sdk_snippet cover their narrower cases.

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