Public application details

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it explicitly says the tool 'Does not download files' and reveals the side effect of establishing an anonymous guest session for CSRF. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and data content, the second prevents a likely misuse expectation about downloads, and the third discloses a non-obvious session side effect. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the strong annotations, complete input schema descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all operational essentials: what data is returned, the public/anonymous nature, the in-memory session nuance, and the non-download behavior. Nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well, including the slug source and aurora_version default. The description adds only the phrase 'for a slug and OS,' which maps to the parameters but does not materially enrich their semantics beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get public details, plain-text description, screenshots and RPM download metadata for a slug and OS.' It clearly identifies this as the public read path for application details and distinguishes it from siblings like get_my_app by the word 'public' and by the slug/OS scope.

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 when to use the tool: to retrieve public details for a known slug and OS. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the schema's reference to 'Application slug from search_apps' gives a small routing hint. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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