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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds helpful response behavior: it returns a 'short' summary and includes a link to the full AppAgg page, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 that states the action, object, and key additional detail (link) with zero waste. 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It pairs naturally with the sibling search tool, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It explicitly says 'by AppAgg ID', clarifying that the integer parameter appagg_id refers to an AppAgg identifier. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property name.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a short app summary by AppAgg ID' and mentions a link to the full AppAgg page. It is distinctly different from the sibling search_apps, which would be used to find IDs, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 'by AppAgg ID' gives clear context for when to call this tool — once you already have the ID. It does not explicitly mention using the sibling search_apps to find IDs, but the distinction is strongly implied. No exclusions are stated, but the context is sufficient.

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