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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only inspection ('dossier', 'inspect') but does not state that it is non-destructive, whether auth or quotas apply, or how the evidence is sourced/fetched.

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 well-structured sentences with no filler. The most important information (what the dossier contains) is front-loaded, followed by a crisp usage pointer.

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?

Given no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return contents and gives a workflow context. It omits parameter nuances and behavioral caveats, but those are either covered by the schema or are not essential for a single-app dossier 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 the schema already documents app_id, storefront, and include_github. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that app_id comes from the candidate selected earlier.

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 names a concrete deliverable ('Full evidence dossier for one app') and enumerates its contents (score breakdown, diagnosis, complaint themes, quotes, provenance, open-source accelerators). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like market_stats or search_open_source_accelerators, which are narrower or market-level tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use after find_low_hanging_fruit to inspect a specific candidate.' It gives clear context but does not spell out exclusions or compare against every sibling.

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