get_app_details

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. The description adds real behavioral context by explaining the live-vs-staged read mode, which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying what happens when package_name is null or whether a missing app raises an error.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by the one behavioral caveat. No filler. The field list in sentence one is slightly ambiguous about whether those are returned values or inputs, but that is a minor cost.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates returned fields, and the edit_id mode is explained. The gap is the default behavior when package_name is omitted — an agent cannot tell whether the call resolves to a current app context, errors, or returns all apps.

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%, so the schema documents neither parameter's meaning. The description carries edit_id well, explaining it selects the staged edit state over the live state. package_name is never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that it identifies the target app.

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 the resource (app details) and enumerates the fields returned: default language, contact email, phone, website. That is specific enough to distinguish it from every sibling (listings, images, reviews, edits). It lacks an explicit verb ('fetch/read'), relying on a noun phrase, but intent 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?

One concrete conditional is given: pass edit_id to read the staged state of an edit rather than the live state. That is genuinely useful routing information. However, there is no guidance on when to omit package_name, which app is targeted by default, or how this relates to edit_summary/validate_edit in the edit workflow.

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