get_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns a privacy dossier with specific components, including a conditional policy summary ('if one has been generated'), which adds useful behavioral context. It does not discuss errors or permissions, but the read-only nature is evident from 'Get' and the focus on returning data.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the return contents in a clear, readable format. Every part adds value, with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the scope ('single tracked app'), the nature of the data (privacy dossier), the major return fields, and the conditional policy summary. It gives an agent enough information to decide whether to invoke this tool and what to expect from the result.

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 single parameter appId is already fully documented in the schema, including its format and source (App Store URL /id<NNN>). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond referring to 'a single tracked app,' but this is acceptable because the schema already provides the necessary detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('full privacy dossier for a single tracked app'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_apps or compare_apps. It also enumerates the returned contents (identity, privacy types/categories, last snapshot, policy summary), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'for a single tracked app' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when you need details for one app, not a list or comparison. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (list_apps, search_apps, compare_apps) make the distinction implicit.

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