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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description's main behavioral addition is the merged-by-default store behavior, which largely restates the schema's store default; nothing about result shape, ranking, or empty-result handling is added.

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 sources and the usage rule front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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 small read-only lookup tool with fully described params and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly, including the id-producing role that feeds the other tools. Minor gap: no hint about result shape or deduplication across stores.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-adjacent statement (

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 ('search') and resource ('apps') plus the two sources covered (iOS App Store, Google Play) and the output value ('their ids'). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings, though 'find apps and their ids' implicitly positions it upstream of get_app_details.

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?

'Use this FIRST when you only know an app name or a category' is a clear routing rule that implies the id-dependent siblings should be called later. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so not a 5.

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