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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the guide includes public keys and is meant to be followed in the repo, but says nothing about the optional app_id behavior when multiple apps exist or about rate/availability constraints.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core deliverable and platform scope front-loaded. Every clause 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 simple read-only single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what the guide contains and where to apply it. It is nearly complete, missing only guidance on the multi-app case, which the schema already handles.

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 single parameter (app_id, optional when only one app) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific deliverable (a step-by-step integration guide) and enumerates the supported platforms (iOS, Android, React Native, Flutter, web), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly differentiate itself from setup-adjacent siblings like add_platform or set_ios_push_key.

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?

'Follow it in the app's repository' gives loose operational context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. per-platform setup tools among the siblings). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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