review_search_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the store:id return convention, which is useful chaining context but not rich behavioral detail (no result-count or fallback behavior).

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose plus the return-format note are front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the key inter-tool contract (store:id for other tools); only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 coverage is 80% and the schema itself documents query, store, country and response_format with examples. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find an app/game and its ID by name') and clarifies the return shape ('store:id'). It implies search-vs-listing differentiation from review_top_apps via 'by name', but never names or contrasts the siblings explicitly.

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?

'Returns IDs in store:id form for the other tools' implies this is a prerequisite lookup step feeding review_fetch/review_compare_apps, but there is no explicit when-to-use clause or exclusion versus review_top_apps.

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