app_info

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses heavy behavioral context: the tool runs inside a desktop app that may not be installed, requires install + licence activation, and needs the app open with a specific licence tier. It also distinguishes the `_engine` sidecar vs in-process execution mode.

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 critical precondition (app not installed) is front-loaded, which is correct prioritization. It is slightly redundant, restating the licence requirement both in the first paragraph ("activate a licence") and the last ("open with an Atelier or Portfolio licence").

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 no output schema, the description carries the full return-value burden and does so thoroughly. Preconditions, licence requirements, and the Routing rationale for calling it first are all present, leaving no gap an agent would need filled.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning; the baseline of 4 applies. The return-field enumeration compensates by describing the output contract instead.

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?

States a specific verb ("Report") and resource (the installed Stochastly app) and enumerates exactly what is returned (version, build_edition, platform, license_status, engine_integrity, `_engine`). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like backtest_status or research_status.

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?

Explicitly says to "Call it first to check that the app is reachable and which plan is active," and explains the complement: a refusal from any other tool names the plan it needs. It also states the precondition (Stochastly open with an Atelier or Portfolio licence).

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