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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the returned payload (metadata, api docs, bundle URL) and noting a secondary access path (GET /apps/:hash/api), which is real behavioral context for an agent deciding what it gets back.

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 no filler; the purpose comes first and the return-value detail follows. The parenthetical API path is dense but relevant rather than wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return shape (metadata fields, api docs, bundle URL). Combined with full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool; only the relationship to list_apps remains unstated.

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 hash parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'published miniapp' framing, which the schema already conveys.

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 ('Get a published miniapp by hash') and scopes it to the published subset, which distinguishes it from list_apps, publish_app, and compose_apps. An agent can identify this as the single-item retrieval tool without opening 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?

The phrase 'by hash' and the schema note that the hash comes from publish_app imply the usage context, but the description never states when to call this versus list_apps or when not to call it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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