Get App Details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not mention authentication/authorization requirements, and gives no indication of side effects (or lack thereof). The absence of any such disclosure is a significant omission for a tool that might be expected to be non-destructive.

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 a single short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the key information. However, it partially duplicates the title, making it slightly less information-dense than it could be. It does not waste words, but could be enriched with sibling differentiation.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a simple retrieval, the description might suffice for basic use. Yet, in a context with over 150 sibling tools, the lack of guidance on which specific app details (beyond the three listed) or how this differs from get_listing leaves a completeness gap. The absence of any behavioral caveats (e.g., rate limits) also lowers the score.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description only reiterates the tool's general scope without contributing to param understanding.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get app details') and lists concrete fields (title, description, developer info), making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like get_listing, and the phrase mirrors the tool name/title so it relies on the name for clarity.

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?

Usage is implied through the description ('Get app details'), and the package_name parameter is required, suggesting it is used to fetch a single app's info. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or limitations, which is a moderate gap given the large sibling set.

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