Get app

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description merely repeats 'Get' without adding behavioral details such as the structure of the returned information or any side effects, so it adds little beyond the annotations.

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, focused sentence without redundant words. It conveys the core purpose directly.

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 tool is a simple get-by-ID operation with rich annotations, but the description lacks detail about the response format or the meaning of 'detailed information'. It does not mention that the include parameter can fetch related resources, though the schema does. Overall, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity about what data is returned.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters: appId is 'App Store Connect app ID' and include lists valid relationship values with an example. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to elaborate, but it also adds no additional semantic meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'app' and explicitly notes 'specific app', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-apps that retrieve multiple apps. It clearly states the tool returns detailed information about an individual app.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-apps or get-app-info. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer another tool, leaving the agent without selection context.

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