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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are short summaries, but does not disclose pagination behavior via the page parameter, result limits, or any other operational traits beyond what annotations already convey.

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 communicates the action, target, query scope, and return type with no filler or redundant restating of the title. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low-complexity read-only search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main omissions are explicit guidance on when to use this over the sibling tool and any explanation of the pagination parameter, but neither is critical for basic 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by specifying that it accepts app, game, or developer names. However, the optional 'page' parameter is never explained, leaving pagination semantics undocumented.

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 action ('Search AppAgg'), the accepted query types ('app, game, or developer name'), and the output ('short summaries'). It is distinct from the sibling appagg_get_app_summary by implying a search flow versus a direct summary lookup, though it does not explicitly call out the sibling.

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 the tool should be used when searching for apps/games/developers by name, and that it returns short summaries. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention appagg_get_app_summary as the alternative for retrieving a known app's full summary.

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