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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds context that responses include pricing and platform links. It does not add auth, rate-limit, or response-format details, but those are less critical for this info lookup.

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?

It is one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the returned information. The platform list is dense but earns its place by clarifying scope.

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 lookup with an output schema and fully documented parameter, the description covers what an agent needs to know. The main missing piece is routing against sibling tools, reflected in the usage score.

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% and the single optional language parameter is fully described in the schema. The description does not mention language behavior, so schema does the heavy lifting as expected.

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 the resource (PriorStates Studio) and enumerates the facts it returns: what it is, price, and per-platform links. This distinguishes it from sibling app-inspection tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get'.

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?

It implies the tool is for general Studio information and download links, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to find_apps/get_app/list_apps, and no when-not conditions.

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