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 real value by disclosing the payload contents, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 tightly packed sentence with the resource stated first and details trailing. The parenthetical is slightly dense but every clause carries information, with no filler.

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 read-only, single-parameter detail tool with no output schema, the description covers input format, source of ids, and return contents. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from the arc_app_history siblings.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates well by giving concrete id formats ('domain:archery.wtf, integration:uniswap') and pointing to arc_apps as the source.

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?

Names a specific resource (one Arc app) with its identifier form and lists the exact data returned (24h stats, contract count, verified status, 7 days of hourly rows). The parenthetical 'ids come from arc_apps' distinguishes it from the listing sibling, though no explicit verb (get/fetch) is stated.

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 phrase 'ids come from arc_apps' implies the retrieval workflow and prerequisite, which is useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the overlapping arc_app_history or arc_app_history_deep siblings, which also surface hourly rows.

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