Lookup App

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a non-destructive read-only operation, and 'returns ranked candidates' hints at the output, but it does not explicitly confirm that no device state is changed, nor does it cover error cases, privacy, or permission requirements. The basic behavior is evident, but the disclosure is minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Search installed apps') followed by the criteria and the result type. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete but not fully. It covers the core intent and result shape, but leaves the optional parameters' effects unexplained. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description does not mention how limit or device affect behavior, nor does it address alternative tools. Overall, it's adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It does explain the 'query' parameter by saying 'by name or package', but it entirely omits 'limit' and 'device'. The description adds some value for the required parameter but leaves two optional parameters undocumented, failing to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('installed apps'), and the search criteria ('by name or package'). It also specifies the output ('ranked candidates with scores'), making its purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from siblings like list_apps or launch_app.

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 implies usage when you need to find an app by name or package, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_apps, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit.

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