get_apk_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description reinforces this by stating it does not download an APK. It also adds behavioral transparency about result semantics: 'A listing does not guarantee that a standalone APK is available,' which is valuable caveat history beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential rate limits or error conditions, though the output schema mitigates some of that gap.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and key parameter, the next brief sentence lists the returned fields, and the final sentence adds a critical caveat. Every clause serves a distinct purpose; no filler or repeated information from the schema.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the required input format, the return fields, and an important behavioral caveat. It also differentiates from the sibling download tool. There is no missing information an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret its output.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates reasonably well by defining the parameter as 'exact Android package name' and providing a concrete example (com.yolo_price_mobile). It conveys the precision requirement. However, it does not explain what happens with nonexistent or similar package names, or how the exact match is enforced.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('get latest RuStore release metadata' by 'exact Android package name' with a concrete example). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool download_apk by explicitly scoping the result to metadata and stating 'Does not download any APK.'

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need metadata for a specific RuStore package, with emphasis on a known package name. It indirectly contrasts with download_apk by disclaiming APK download, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or provide a when-not-to-use condition beyond that exclusion.

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