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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful result-shape context ('one row per app, best match first'), but says nothing about result volume, pagination via cursor, or how the context parameter influences matching.

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 tight sentences with the positive condition first, result shape second, and the exclusion last. Zero wasted text.

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 an 8-parameter, 3-enum search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core query intent and result cardinality but omits how to page (cursor), how limit interacts with results, and what the store/kind enums mean for narrowing. An agent must fall back to the schema for roughly half the invocation surface.

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 38% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It enriches the query parameter with a concrete example ('create jira ticket') but leaves kind, store, limit, cursor, context, and response_format entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

It states a concrete retrieval task: resolve an app's ref from its name, publisher, brand, or function, and it explicitly contrasts with charts_get. The verb is implicit ('use this when you need an app's ref') rather than a clean 'search listings', but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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?

Two explicit rules: use it when you need an app ref from vague identifying cues, and do NOT use it for popularity or rankings — use charts_get instead. This is a direct when/when-not/alternative structure naming the sibling.

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