Get App Details

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only indicates the kind of fields returned and implies a read via 'Get'; it does not state read-only behavior, localization behavior, or any edge-case or side-effect information.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and the most relevant output fields. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 schema documents both parameters and an output schema exists, covering the call and return shape. However, the description alone gives no context about language localization behavior or how this tool differs from nearby listing-related siblings, leaving some ambiguity for agent selection.

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%, with package_name and language already documented in the input schema including type, default, and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond listing output fields, so the schema-covered baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get app details') and enumerates key fields (title, description, developer info), making it clear this is an app-level metadata read. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_listing or get_store_listing, which could also return similar fields, so it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_listing, get_store_listing, list_all_listings, or update_app_details. No conditions, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool over alternatives are provided.

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