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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully notes multi-value 'ANY' matching semantics, but adds nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or API-key/auth constraints beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded before the parameter note and the example. The example invocation is somewhat redundant with the schema's own examples, a minor bit of waste.

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 5-param, read-only query tool with 100% schema coverage and annotation-provided safety, the description is sufficient; the only missing piece is explicit routing against sibling app-search tools.

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 parameter meaning is already fully documented (comma-separated SDK ids, page/limit defaults, platform enum, _apiKey). The description's inline example largely restates the schema examples rather than adding new semantic detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Find apps') plus the distinctive filter (integrate a given SDK), which separates it from generic siblings like fortytwo_app_search or fortytwo_app_lookup. It stops short of naming any sibling to differentiate explicitly.

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 gives a use-case hint ('competitive/market-share analysis of ad networks, analytics'), which implies when the tool is valuable, but never says when NOT to use it or points to an alternative such as fortytwo_app_search for non-SDK queries.

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