Get app

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 genuine behavioral detail beyond that: exactly which records come back (one live app-info record, one editable record when a version is in progress) and that versions are capped at the five most recent — a scoping limit an agent would otherwise not know.

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 sentence that leads with the core action and then stacks the returned resources, with the parenthetical about live vs. editable records paying for its space. Nothing redundant, nothing 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so at a summary level (app details, info records, recent versions). It stops short of describing the shape of 'app details' or what happens for an unknown appId, which keeps it from a 5, but it is sufficient for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining appId's origin ('from list_apps'). The description adds no further semantics about the identifier, so the 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('gets') with a precise resource ('an app's details') and enumerates the sub-resources returned: App Store info records and the five most recent App Store versions. That detail makes it clearly distinct from the sibling list_apps, and the schema note 'App ID (from list_apps)' reinforces the get-vs-list split.

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 only implied: a single-resource fetch keyed on appId, naturally downstream of list_apps. The description never states when to choose this over list_apps or list_app_store_versions, and offers no prerequisitives or exclusions.

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