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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds the identifier context but not deeper behavioral traits like error handling or response format, which is reasonable given the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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, to-the-point sentence that front-loads the resource ('single app') and the accepted identifiers. No wasted words; the description is efficient and immediately informative.

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 lookup with two parameters (one optional) and no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent. It specifies the identifier types and the tool's purpose, though it omits explicit differentiation from siblings—a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers both parameters fully (appId description and store enum with description). The description's mention of identifier formats mirrors the schema exactly, adding no new semantic value beyond the structured data. Baseline 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action (retrieve details) on a clear resource (a single app) and lists the accepted identifier formats (App Store id, Play package name, or bundle id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_apps (lists multiple apps) and get_releases/reviews (focus on specific aspects).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_apps or get_releases. It only says what it does, leaving the agent to infer that for a single app's details this is the appropriate choice. No exclusion conditions or 'see also' guidance are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: it explains temporary edits for Play tracks (with cleanup) and that nothing is committed, plus the normalization of states and rawState field. This goes beyond the annotations and adds genuinely useful behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, each contributing a distinct piece of information: what it returns, the state vocabulary and rawState, and the temporary-edit behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though it could be tightened slightly by merging the state list with the second sentence.

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 read-only tool with two optional well-documented parameters and an output schema (as indicated by the context), the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: state normalization, rawState, temporary Play edits, and the read-only guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 fully documented in the schema (appId's format and omission semantics, store's enum and default). The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific action (getting release state) with a clear resource (releases) and scope (one app or portfolio). It enumerates the normalized states, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reviews or stores_health. 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?

The description clearly explains what the tool does and that it can be scoped to a single app or all apps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context (release states vs reviews vs health) makes the appropriate use case clear. No misleading guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: results are capped per call (200 App Store, 100 Play), cursor behavior, platform-specific limitations, and a security warning that review content is untrusted and should be treated as data, not instructions. It also notes that Play only returns reviews for apps that have any. This fully discloses behavior beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage nuances, platform limits, and a security note. There is minimal redundancy, though the security section is verbose and could be tightened. Still, it earns a high score for structure and relevance.

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 read-only tool with 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: default behavior, filtering intent, pagination caveats, platform constraints, and a security warning about untrusted content. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results safely. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure, and the description fills all other 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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter has a description. The tool description adds significant value by explaining usage patterns: 'Omit appId to sweep the whole portfolio' clarifies the omission semantics, 'set maxRating to 2 to triage complaints' provides a concrete use case, and 'cursor' is contextualized as a continuation token with a single-app constraint. This exceeds a baseline of 3 because it provides actionable intent beyond the schema's basic field 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 the tool returns recent user reviews from both stores in one list, newest first. It names the specific resource (reviews) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_releases (releases) and get_app (app info). The verb 'get' is explicit and the scope 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: omit appId to sweep the whole portfolio, set maxRating to 2 to triage complaints, and clarifies that cursor pagination only works when targeting a single app (a portfolio sweep has no single next page). It also warns about platform limits (Google Play only returns last week's reviews). This goes beyond generic context to actionable selection criteria.

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

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already established. The description adds valuable context: the App Store side is auto-discovered while the Play side relies on PLAY_PACKAGES, explaining why the output set may vary by configuration. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second explains the mechanism/limitation. No redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool is simple (one optional param) and has an output schema, so no return-format explanation is needed. The description covers what apps are included, the dependency on credentials, and the Play-side caveat, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 100% with a clear description of the 'store' parameter and its default. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond restating the store sources, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all apps reachable with credentials from both stores, which is a specific verb+resource scope. It distinguishes implicitly from siblings like get_app and get_releases by focusing on enumeration, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 this is the tool to enumerate apps, and notes the limitation of Play discovery, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Usage context is inferable from the name and scope but not spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope. The description adds the detail that it checks credential validity, which is behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or failure modes beyond that. With annotations already carrying the main safety profile, the description adds moderate value but not extensive transparency, justifying a 3.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a direct usage directive. No filler words, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is a model of efficiency.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose and when to call it. It does not elaborate on what the report contains, but that is handled by the output schema. The only minor gap is not specifying what qualifies as 'something returns nothing,' but that is likely context-dependent and not critical. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion, so this score is warranted.

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 the tool reports which stores are configured and whether credentials work, which is distinct from the sibling tools that list apps, get app details, releases, or reviews. The verb 'report' plus the resource (stores and credentials) makes the purpose 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?

The description gives an explicit usage instruction: 'Call this first when something returns nothing.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, but it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use it. Since the tool is unique among siblings, the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive, so a 4 is appropriate.

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