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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior the schema does not: automatic name lookup from the App Store ID, the temporary-app mode, and a free-plan quota of 1 app. It says nothing about duplicates (what happens if the app is already tracked), errors, or permissions.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary use case front-loaded and the fallback mode immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct 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 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, this covers the two calling modes and a quota constraint. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — duplicate apps, failure modes — which an agent would want before calling, but nothing critical for a correct invocation 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 coverage is already 75%, and the description still adds cross-parameter semantics: appStoreId omitted plus name supplied defines a temporary app. That relationship is not fully expressible from the individual field descriptions. platform and homeStore are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Track an app by App Store ID') and the lookup side effect. The resource itself separates it from siblings like add_keywords and list_apps, though it never names or contrasts an alternative 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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: use appStoreId to track a published app, or omit it and pass name for a temporary app. It also flags the free-plan cap of 1 app. No exclusions or named alternatives are offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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