Get a Google Play app edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description's job is to add context. It adds that the response includes the edit ID and expiry time, which is useful, but says nothing about expiry behavior, authentication requirements, or whether an expired/invalid edit produces an error. Some added value, but not rich behavioral context.

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 wasted wording, and the noun phrase 'an existing edit ID and expiry time' carries the key scope. It is arguably over-terse given the parameter documentation gap, but as a structural matter it is clean 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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and hints at the return shape (ID and expiry). It is not complete enough to call correctly without guessing at packageName semantics and the edit lifecycle, which are the main gaps.

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 0%: neither packageName nor editId has any description, and the description mentions only 'edit ID' in passing while never clarifying the package name parameter, its format expectations, or where the editId comes from. With two required params and no schema documentation, the description should compensate and does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read an existing edit') and even names what comes back (edit ID and expiry time), which clearly separates it from the mutating siblings create_edit, commit_edit, discard_edit, and validate_edit. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the read/list-style purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Existing' weakly implies an edit must already have been created via create_edit, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of which sibling to call instead for related tasks, and no mention of what to do if the edit has expired. An agent must infer the workflow from the tool name and sibling list.

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