My application details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful context: it scans at most 500 apps, verifies catalog membership, and refuses unverified ID reads. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies operational limits.

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 concise sentences that all earn their place: the first states what is read, the second adds a verification step, and the third gives limits and exclusions. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers enough: source of the ID, verification behavior, scan limit, and excluded operations. 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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the description mostly repeats the schema's guidance that app_id must be an owned app ID from list_my_apps. The description adds behavioral context, but not much new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource: developer metadata and shared description for an app_id from list_my_apps. It also distinguishes this from other app-related tools by emphasizing ownership and catalog membership, so an agent can tell it apart from get_app or list_my_apps.

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?

It clearly states that the app_id must come from list_my_apps and that only verified catalog members can be read. It also implies this is not for public slugs, release IDs, downloads, or writes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give a when-not-to-use comparison.

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