Resolve package name to appId

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description usefully adds the batch behavior (comma-separated input, up to 50 names, potentially multiple appIds returned). It does not disclose what happens when a package name is unknown or unmatched, which for an open-world lookup is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The batch constraint sits right where an agent needs it, and nothing is restated wastefully.

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 simple read-only resolver with no output schema, the description covers the input shape and cap but says nothing about the response shape or behavior on unmatched packages. Since no output schema exists to carry that burden, a brief note on the returned mapping would have made it complete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the site enum and its AGC_SITE default. The description only reinforces the comma-separated format and the 50-item limit for packageNames, adding marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Resolve AGC appId(s) from package name(s)'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agc_list_apps or agc_get_app_id-style lookups, since the transformation from package name to appId is explicit. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as agc_list_apps for enumerating apps. The only contextual hint is the 50-item batch cap, which is a constraint rather than a usage rule. An agent must infer when this tool is preferable to its siblings.

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