api_indexer_lookup_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (hinted by 'itemsPerPage' parameter), or what happens if the appId doesn't exist. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'application information' includes, how pagination works with 'itemsPerPage', or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 3 parameters and complex sibling context, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters (appId, network, itemsPerPage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or typical usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 'Get application information from indexer' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('application information'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'api_indexer_search_for_applications' or 'api_algod_get_application_by_id', leaving the scope unclear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also deal with applications (e.g., 'api_indexer_search_for_applications', 'api_algod_get_application_by_id'), the description offers no context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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