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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup by using 'Get' and lists the returned fields, which is helpful, but it says nothing about authentication, error behavior when the id doesn't exist, or scoping.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and a concrete field list, with zero filler. Nothing wasteful, though the second sentence could carry more distinguishing detail for the same length.

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 simple single-object read with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a field level. But the missing asc_app_id contract leaves an agent unable to reconcile the description with the actual input schema, which is a material completeness 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 description tells the agent to call it 'by asc_app_id', but the schema contains no asc_app_id property — the only parameter is notification_message, which the description never mentions. This misdirects the agent about what to supply, even though schema coverage is otherwise 100%.

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 and resource ('Get one app's details') and enumerates the fields returned (name, bundle id, SKU), which distinguishes it from list_apps and get_bundle_id. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than 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?

Gives a clear use case — confirm the right app before mutating it, which implicitly separates it from list_apps (browse) and update_app (mutate). No explicit when-not or alternative-naming, so it falls short of a 5.

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