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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is met; the description adds useful behavior the annotations don't cover — multilingual matching and the no-match fallback to Studio app creation. It does restate return contents that the output schema already documents.

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 front-loaded sentences with embedded examples; the enumeration of return contents (what each does, link, screenshot, how to open) is slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but overall there is little waste.

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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, language scope and the no-results path. The only meaningful omission is an explicit pointer to which sibling to call when the task is enumeration or single-app lookup.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description earns extra credit by illustrating the free-text `need` parameter with real multi-language examples ('split a dinner bill', '分账', 'recibos') and by noting the language default shifts to Chinese when the need is in Chinese.

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 verb and resource ('Find free ready-made PriorStates Studio Gallery apps') scoped to a plain-language need, which clearly separates it from get_app (single app) and list_apps (enumeration) among the siblings.

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?

Gives concrete examples of the kind of need to pass and an explicit fallback condition ('If nothing fits, Studio can make a new app'), which implicitly routes to get_studio. It never names the sibling tools or states when to prefer list_apps/get_app instead.

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