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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also discloses a notable fallback: if the id is unknown, the tool lists all valid ids, preventing redundant guessing. This goes beyond a basic 'get' and helps the agent understand side effects and error behavior.

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 exactly two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable behavioral note. Every word 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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, what it returns (full description, tags, links), and a notable fallback. It does not describe error handling for malformed ids, but the schema covers constraints, and the tool's simplicity means this is sufficient. Slightly more detail on return structure would push it to 5.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter with constraints and an example. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself; it only describes the output. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get', the resource 'one app from the Spark catalogue', and the method 'by its id'. It also specifies the return content (full description, tags, links). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_apps (all apps) and search_apps (search), so an agent can easily tell when to use it.

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: call this when you have a specific id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like search_apps. The fallback note about unknown ids provides a small usage hint, but no explicit guidance on selecting between this and sibling tools.

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