get_app_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval and enumerates the exact fields returned while excluding per-locale details. It does not cover auth, errors, or defaults beyond the schema, but for a simple getter the scope is well disclosed.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific fields, making every word useful.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough information for selection and invocation: it names the returned fields and clarifies the non-locale scope. It could add response shape or explicit default-package behavior, but the schema covers the parameter and the tool is simple.

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 description does not explain the package_name parameter, but the input schema fully documents it with an example and a default value, yielding 100% schema coverage. Therefore the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource as 'app-level details' while naming the exact fields returned (contactEmail, contactPhone, contactWebsite, defaultLanguage). It also explicitly contrasts these with per-locale data, which distinguishes it from locale-specific sibling tools like get_listing.

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 phrase 'not per-locale' provides clear context that this tool is for app-wide settings rather than locale-specific listing details, helping an agent choose it over get_listing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the implied scope is clear enough.

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