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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the output is Markdown-formatted and lists the fields returned (name, locales, per-store ids, creation/edit times), exceeding what structured metadata alone provides.

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, information-dense sentence. It opens with the core action, then the result format, with no filler or redundant explanation.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description together with annotations and schema covers the essential behavior. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly steering the agent to list_apps, but nothing crucial is missing.

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% and the only parameter appId already includes a meaningful description ('App id (uuid)'). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('a single Appskyline app'), and the selection criterion ('by id'). It is clearly distinct from list-style siblings like list_apps, though it doesn't name any alternative.

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 context is clear for a direct single-app lookup, and the phrase 'single ... by id' implies when to use it, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions such as list_apps are mentioned. Guidance is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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