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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope and lists returned fields, but it does not explain defaults, error behavior, permissions, or what happens when optional filters are omitted.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it front-loads a list of returned fields rather than leading with the tool's action, making it more compact than well-structured.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation and annotations cover its safety profile, while the description lists the main returned fields in lieu of an output schema. It is minimally adequate, but it leaves parameter behavior and sibling tool selection unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only mentions language and version as stored attributes rather than explaining their parameter roles. It does not clarify that appId is required, how version filtering works, or that language is an optional locale selector.

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 implies retrieval of app metadata by naming the stored fields and scope (one app and language), but it never states an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets'. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like find_apps, search_apps, or get_app_estimates.

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 guidance on when to use get_app versus find_apps, search_apps, or the other app-related sibling tools. The description gives no exclusions or alternative-selection criteria.

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