get_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that — no note on what fields 'details' contains, no rate-limit or auth context — so it qualifies only as adequate given the lower bar set by 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to identifying the resource and the keying parameter.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, the description is largely sufficient. The mild gap is that 'details' is left undefined and the sibling get_app_infos is never addressed, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its numeric format and the 'from list_apps' origin. The description's 'by app ID' restates the schema without adding syntax or format meaning, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a single app') and scopes it by App Store Connect app ID, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling get_app_infos, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives or the workflow that precedes it. While a lookup tool's usage is somewhat implied, the presence of a near-identical sibling (get_app_infos) makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap.

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