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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the result is a 'short' summary and that it includes a link to the full page. No contradiction exists.

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 that front-loads the core action and includes only necessary details. 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, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is not telling the agent that IDs can be obtained via appagg_search_apps or clarifying the scope of 'short,' but an agent with a valid ID can invoke the tool correctly.

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 needed to clarify the parameter, but it mostly restates the property name: 'AppAgg ID.' It does not explain how to obtain a valid ID or add details beyond the schema's type and range. This is minimally adequate for a single obvious parameter.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and names the resource ('app or game summary'), the required selector ('by AppAgg ID'), and the output detail ('link to the full AppAgg page'). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from the sibling appagg_search_apps tool, which would be used to find apps rather than fetch a summary by ID.

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' clearly establishes the use case: call this when an AppAgg ID is already known. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention appagg_search_apps as the way to discover IDs, so it stops short of providing alternatives or exclusions.

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