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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes a read operation (returns metadata) and discloses specific output fields and the requirement that the app is 'published.' No side effects are indicated, which is appropriate for a read tool, and the description adds useful context beyond what a bare schema would provide.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Renvoie') and clearly lists the metadata fields. No filler or redundant information; it earns its place entirely.

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 metadata retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource and the returned fields. The only minor gap is not explicating the need for secret_token for private apps not owned by the configured API key, but this is a parameter-level detail rather than a tool-level behavioral requirement.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 50% (slug has no description; secret_token has a schema description). The tool description does not explain the slug parameter or the role of secret_token, so it fails to compensate for the gap. Since slug is required and undocumented in both schema and description, the agent lacks necessary semantic information.

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 'Renvoie les métadonnées d'une app publiée (URL, titre, taille, dates de création et de mise à jour)' uses a specific verb ('Renvoie' returns) and clearly identifies the resource (metadata of a published app) with concrete fields. It distinguishes from sibling get_app_data, which likely returns the app's stored data rather than metadata.

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?

The description implies usage when metadata is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like get_app_data. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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