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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results include store, id, and best saved rank, but it does not describe matching behavior, result limits, pagination, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the search action and then states the returned fields, so every sentence 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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and return fields. It remains light on result limits, matching semantics, and pagination, which an agent may need to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'query' parameter. It does so partially by saying the query can be an app name or developer, but it gives no matching, formatting, or example details.

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 and resource: find apps in the archive by name or developer. It also names the returned fields, making the tool's purpose clear against siblings like get_app_rank_history. Sibling alternatives are not explicitly addressed, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Find apps in the archive by name or developer,' which tells the agent this is the app-search tool. It does not state when to use it instead of siblings such as get_app_rank_history or get_chart, nor does it give exclusions.

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