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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds genuine value by disclosing the search scope (app, game, or developer name) and the output format ('short summaries' rather than full records). This open-world behavior — incomplete summary results — is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place: the search dimensions and the output format are both conveyed with zero waste.

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 search tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential call context: what can be searched and what form the results take. The remaining gap is the unaddressed page parameter, though its constraints are documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the query parameter by specifying it accepts app, game, or developer names. However, the page parameter is left entirely to the schema's generic 'Page' title, with no explanation of pagination behavior or how results are split across pages. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search AppAgg by app, game, or developer name.' The search dimensions are specified precisely. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling appagg_get_app_summary, but the 'return short summaries' phrasing hints that a full-summary tool exists elsewhere, so the 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?

The description implies usage context — search is for finding apps and getting short summaries, which subtly suggests the sibling get_app_summary is for retrieving detailed records. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus appagg_get_app_summary, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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