Search apps (App Store / Google Play)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds cost/latency context ('Cheap, one call') and enumerates the returned fields, including the store-dependent 'installs' for Google, which is genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the key payoff (the app id), then usage conditions, then routing. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields, and it covers store selection, cost, and next-step tools. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and route onward.

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%, so lang, term, limit, store, and country are all documented in the schema itself. The description reiterates store: "google" for Android but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Find apps by name or keyword') plus the downstream value ('get the app id the other tools need'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings get_app_reviews, review_insights, and compare_apps, which all consume the id this tool returns.

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?

Explicit triggering conditions are given: when the user names an app ('Duolingo','Calm') or a category ('budget apps'). It also names the follow-on tools (review_insights, compare_apps) and the store selection rule, leaving little to inference.

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