Add an application

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: metadata is fetched from the store, an initial visibility score is computed, the app is linked to the user's workspace, and the call consumes plan quota. It stops short of covering duplicate/invalid-ID handling, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the side effects and quota caveat following in priority order. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description discloses the side effects, the store-fetch step, the score computation, and the quota cost, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits failure modes (invalid bundle ID, already-tracked app) that would complete the picture.

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 enum values and format examples for lang, store, country and app_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions only the bundle ID and adds no format, defaulting, or interplay details beyond what the schema already documents, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Track a new mobile application') and adds the keying mechanism ('by its store bundle ID'), which cleanly separates it from list_applications, add_competitor, and track_keywords. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied – the agent can infer 'call this when you want to start tracking an app', but no alternative is named (e.g., when to prefer this over add_competitor) and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The plan-cap note is a constraint, not guidance on when to use it.

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