Get App Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's read-only 'Get' wording is consistent. It adds the behavioral detail that the rating histogram can optionally be included, but does not disclose other nuances such as precedence or identifier requirements; with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences; the key verb, resource, and invocation options are front-loaded. No filler or redundancy, and every sentence earns its place.

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 the output schema, rich parameter schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly for common cases. It leaves a minor ambiguity about requiring at least one identifier, since the schema lists no required fields, but overall it is adequate.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds context that id and appId are two alternative identifier types and that ratings toggles the histogram, but does not go beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('App Store metadata'), the scope ('for one app'), and the accepted identifiers ('numeric track ID or bundle identifier'). This distinguishes it from sibling search/review/ratings tools by emphasizing it targets a single app by identifier.

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 does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings like app_store_search or app_store_ratings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that id or appId should be provided). It implies usage through the identifier wording but gives no explicit context or alternatives.

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