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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere. It adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are ordered newest first, and release notes are returned in the requested language when stored, otherwise falling back to English — a detail an agent could not predict from 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 compact sentence that front-loads the core resource and ordering, then the return fields and language rule. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing language clause is slightly nested and could be split for readability.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it states the payload contents (release date, release notes), ordering, and language behavior. The remaining gap is the limit parameter's effect on result volume, which goes unmentioned.

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 carry parameter meaning; it does explain the language parameter's fallback-to-English semantics well beyond the bare ^[a-zA-Z]{2}$ pattern. However, it says nothing about appId or the limit parameter (max 200), leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific resource (versions of one app) and adds distinguishing characteristics: newest-first ordering plus release date and release notes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_app or get_app_creative_history, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for version/release-note history of a given app. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_app or get_app_creative_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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