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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a note about results being tied to the POST request's app_id, but doesn't mention pagination, error behavior, or task-expiry beyond what the schema already says.

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 sentences that are front-loaded but include a long enumeration of return fields (ID, icon, description, reviews count, rating, installs, images) that duplicates the output schema and adds length without value.

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 enumerating return values is redundant, and the key workflow detail (call this after post_dataforseo_app_google_app_info_submit using its task id) is left implicit. Adequate but with a clear gap for an id-based results-retrieval tool.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'app_id' does not map to the actual parameter name 'id' and could confuse rather than clarify.

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 clear verb+resource: it returns mobile-app information for the app referenced in a prior POST request. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_dataforseo_app_google_app_info_fetch_html or make explicit that it retrieves results of an already-submitted task.

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?

The phrase 'specified in a POST request' implies this is a follow-up results-fetch, but it never names post_dataforseo_app_google_app_info_submit as the prerequisite step. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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