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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are short summaries across all stores and lists returned fields, but does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior or result limits (the schema already constrains page).

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and return summary, followed by the usage guidance and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With annotations covering safety, 100% schema parameter coverage, and an output schema for return values, the description is nearly complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer appagg_get_app_summary over this search tool.

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 100%, so both the query and page parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description repeats the query semantics ('app, game, or developer name') but adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search AppAgg') and specifies the searchable fields (app, game, developer name) plus result scope ('across all stores'). It distinguishes itself from appagg_new_and_deals by noting it returns short summaries for named entities, but it does not explicitly differentiate from appagg_get_app_summary beyond the word 'short summaries'.

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: use when the user names an app, game, or developer, or wants cross-store comparison. It also names an alternative ('For lists of new releases or deals, use appagg_new_and_deals'), though it does not address the other sibling appagg_get_app_summary.

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