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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and network profile is covered. The description adds only the qualifier 'normalized,' hinting that the labels are standardized rather than raw; it says nothing about rate limits, auth, or what happens when an app has no privacy labels.

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?

A single trimmed sentence with no filler and the key noun (privacy label data) front-loaded. It is efficient, though so short that it borders on under-specification rather than true concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described, and all three required params are fully documented in the schema. However, for a lookup tool in a dense app-store family, the description omits any routing or edge-case context, leaving it only minimally complete.

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%, with ID, Lang, and Country each fully documented (formats, defaults, examples). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns normalized privacy label data for an Apple App Store app. That is specific enough to distinguish it from generic app tools, but it never references the many sibling tools (appstore_app, appstore_ratings, googleplay_datasafety, chromewebstore_privacy) that could be confused with it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool for privacy labels rather than app metadata from the name alone.

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