查询应用详细信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns multiple categories of information (basic info, language descriptions, review comments, staged release info), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, response size, or that review comments might be nested within the response.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the key content categories. It's efficient and doesn't waste words, though it could be slightly more structured with separators.

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 read-only query tool with 80% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and content categories. However, it doesn't mention the relationship between releaseType and versionId (though the schema does), nor does it clarify what '分阶段发布信息' means in practice. The openWorldHint suggests the tool may return data from external sources, but the description doesn't elaborate.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the overall purpose but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. The releaseType and versionId relationship is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 states a clear verb ('查询' = query) and resource ('应用详细信息' = app detailed info), listing specific content categories: basic info, language descriptions, review comments, staged release info. It distinguishes from siblings like agc_list_apps (which lists apps) and agc_list_reviews (which lists reviews), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 usage for querying app details, and the schema's platform/releaseType fields provide some context (e.g., harmonyos vs android, releaseType=6 requires versionId). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like agc_list_apps or agc_list_reviews, nor does it mention exclusions.

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