get_app

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false for local data). The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that a single call returns a composite result: the app reference plus its sourced awards and local captures, which is important since no output schema exists. It does not say what happens when the id is unknown.

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 the verb first and no filler. Minor redundancy from repeating 'local' twice, and the density comes at the cost of leaving key semantics unstated.

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 one-parameter read with rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, which is its main gap-filler given there is no output schema. It still omits the meaning/format of the id and any error or not-found behavior, leaving an agent to guess at the key it must supply.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented anywhere. The description only implies the id selects one app reference; it never states the id format or whether it is a local app id versus an external store id, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose hangs on that key.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one local app reference') and further enumerates what comes back: sourced awards and associated local captures. The singular 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_apps list tool, though it never names it.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no mention of where the required id comes from (presumably search_apps), and no mention of alternatives such as search_apps or get_flow. The only hint about context is the word 'one', which describes shape rather than guidance.

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