Get app info

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the specific data fields returned (age rating, category, app store state) and reinforcing that results are territory-specific, which goes beyond the schema. There is no contradiction with 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a crucial cross-reference to 'list-app-infos' without any fluff. 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?

For a simple, one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what data it returns, and how to obtain the necessary ID. It is complete in context.

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 single parameter 'appInfoId' is fully described in the schema itself, including its origin ('from list-app-infos') and cardinality ('one per territory'). The tool description repeats this same information, adding no additional semantic value beyond the schema's coverage of 100%.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('app info'), and the specific scope ('for one territory') while listing the key data fields (age rating, category, app store state). It also distinguishes itself from the broader sibling 'get-app' by emphasizing the territory-specific scope and referencing 'list-app-infos' as the ID source.

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 provides clear context: this tool retrieves app info for a single territory, and IDs come from 'list-app-infos'. It implies a workflow dependency (call list-app-infos first) and implicitly differentiates from other get/list tools by scope, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative.

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