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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, read-only lookup, so behavioral burden is low. The description adds useful context about what the result contains (purpose, plain-language permissions, page, screenshot, opening instructions), though it omits any auth or rate-limit caveats.

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 sentence with no filler. The most important information (what the tool returns and where the id comes from) comes first.

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 rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies everything the agent needs to call correctly: id source, expected return content, and no misleading omissions. Language behavior is fully covered by the schema.

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 both id and language are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the id source and does not explain the language parameter's effect beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full details of one ... app by id') and scopes it to the Gallery. Naming find_apps and list_apps as the id sources distinguishes it from the list/search siblings without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to obtain the id from find_apps or list_apps, which is the key usage context. It does not spell out when not to use it (e.g. vs get_studio), but the routing guidance is clear.

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