get_app_infos

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It usefully adds what the records contain (age rating, store state), but says nothing about pagination, platform variants, or the fact that multiple App Info records may exist.

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. The only minor friction is that the tool name says 'get' while the description and behavior are list-oriented, but the text itself is tight and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essentials by indicating what the returned records include. It could do slightly more to distinguish this from get_app, but nothing critical is missing to invoke it correctly.

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 appId parameter is fully documented with a pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific resource (App Info records) scoped to an app and discloses the salient contents (age rating, current store state). It reads clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling get_app or list_apps.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings like get_app and list_apps that an agent could easily confuse with this tool. The agent is left to infer the context entirely.

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