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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about pagination caps, corpus coverage caveats, or result ordering, all of which live only in 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the resource and scope come first. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a 12-parameter tool.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so the description need not explain return values. Still, for a 12-param search tool the description omits any mention of the platform-coverage backfill caveat or how this differs from sibling apps searches, leaving some context gaps.

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 schema already documents every parameter including enum-like allowed values and the page*page_size<=10000 constraint. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 (Search) and resource (mobile apps dataset) and scopes it with the parenthetical '(iOS App Store and Google Play)', so the agent knows it spans both stores. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like datasets_apps_reviews_search or datasets_apps_charts_search, but the dataset scope implies the difference.

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 and no named alternatives. The agent is not told to prefer this over datasets_apps_reviews_search (for reviews) or datasets_apps_charts_search (for rankings), nor when a keyword query vs a structured filter is appropriate. Usage is only implied by the word 'Search'.

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