Get Developer Apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and dynamic data. The description adds the scope constraint 'all apps,' but no additional behavioral details like pagination or response limits. This matches the baseline where annotations carry the safety burden.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler words. It is immediately scannable and directly addresses the tool's purpose.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, this description is complete. The agent knows what to expect (all apps for a developer) and can rely on the schema for parameters and output, so no further elaboration is needed.

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%, with all parameters (devId, lang, country) having clear inline descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 without needing to compensate.

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 ('Get') plus a clear resource ('all apps published under an App Store developer account'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search or app lookup by scoping to a developer account, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly defines the use case: when you need all apps for a given developer ID. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state exclusions, but the resource scope (developer account) clearly differentiates it from search or listing tools, providing enough context for an agent.

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