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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered, and the description adds real behavioral context: server-side fetch, async job lifecycle, webhook on terminal state, and 48h sha256-based idempotency returning an existing job. No auth or rate-limit detail, and the 'submit creates a job' framing sits slightly awkwardly beside readOnlyHint, but nothing is contradicted outright.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then next-step routing, then the dedup rule. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the full call lifecycle: input fetch, polling vs webhook, and idempotent re-submission. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that file_url is fetched server-side and that webhook_url drives push delivery at terminal state, tying the parameters to the async workflow rather than just naming them.

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 ('Submit an APK for static teardown analysis') and enumerates the analysis outputs (manifest, permissions, signing, SDK detection, tech stack, locales). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like apk_teardown_job_status, apk_teardown_diff, and apk_teardown_compare_ownership.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: poll apk_teardown_job_status for the result, or supply webhook_url for push delivery. That is strong when-to-use guidance with a named alternative, though it does not state when to prefer one delivery mode over the other or any exclusions.

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