get_app_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'Get detailed information', indicating a read-only operation, and lists the specific data returned (rank, metrics, ratings, sparkline, developer info). This conveys key behavioral traits, though it does not mention potential errors or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the verb and object, and efficiently lists the included data points without any redundant or irrelevant content. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter read tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (rank, metrics, ratings, trend, developer info), making it complete for a basic get-details scenario. It lacks mention of error handling or edge cases, but given the simplicity, this is not a significant gap.

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 clear descriptions for app_id (including source hint) and locale (enumerated values and default). The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific World MiniApp', listing specific data points (rank, user metrics, verified ratings, trend data, developer info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_miniapps (list) and get_app_reviews (reviews only).

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 description implies a workflow by referencing 'specific' app and the app_id parameter says 'get from search_miniapps results', providing clear context for when to use this tool (after search). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the link to search_miniapps gives usage guidance.

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