Find apps to pin as competitors

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true for a search, openWorldHint=true for the external Play lookup), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: that it fans out to two heterogeneous sources and that only one of them is crawl-ready, which explains why results differ in usability.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the two-source split is front-loaded before the follow-up action. The telegraphic parenthetical ("not crawled yet; add_competitor creates the project first") is dense but still parseable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place an agent could learn whether results are tagged by source or carry a project id — and it says nothing about the return shape. Invocation is adequately covered for a 3-parameter read tool, but result interpretation is left to guesswork.

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 coverage is 67%: q has an example and project_id cites list_projects as its source, while limit is bare. The description contributes nothing about parameters, not even that project_id scopes the FlyTrap lookup half of the search. With most parameters documented in-schema, baseline 3 applies.

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 (searches) and names both resources it queries: public FlyTrap projects with a crawled feature catalog and Google Play. The competitor-pinning purpose is legible, though the description never contrasts itself with the sibling search_apps or lookup_app, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Gives a clear downstream workflow ("Pass the result to add_competitor") and explains the situational difference between the two result sources: FlyTrap hits are ready to pin now, Play hits require add_competitor to create the project first. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over search_apps or lookup_app.

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