googleplay_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of returned data (installs, ratings, pricing, version info, developer metadata, media assets, release state, selected comments, recommendation rails) and introduces default country/lang values. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth, or error cases, but for a read-style details endpoint this is solid coverage.

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: first states the core action, second lists what's returned, third provides the sibling pointer and defaults. Every sentence contributes new, relevant information with no waste.

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 description is strong for a details tool: it enumerates the included data fields, points to a related tool for alternative breakdowns, and gives defaults. It doesn't describe the exact output shape, but with no output schema, the field list is a good proxy. There is a slight gap on whether 'full details' includes all possible storefront variations, but the defaults and pointer cover most needs.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable default values (`country=us`, `lang=en`), which are not present in the schema, giving it a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve full Google Play app details.' It enumerates the specific data categories returned (installs, ratings, pricing, etc.) and distinguishes itself from the sibling `/googleplay/ratings` tool by directing users there for per-device ratings breakdowns.

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 description gives clear context: it returns full app metadata from a details page. It also provides an explicit alternative: for per-device ratings/reviews, use `/googleplay/ratings`. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over other siblings like `googleplay_search` or `googleplay_similar`, so it's not a full 5.

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