search_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states that the tool returns candidate matches with App Store URLs, which conveys the search-like, non-exact nature of results and the downstream workflow. It does not detail failure modes or result limits, but these are less critical for a simple read-only search.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the core action, and the second adds workflow and parameter-combination guidance. 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?

For a simple search tool with optional parameters and no output schema, this description is nearly complete: it provides the purpose, return type (candidate matches with App Store URLs), and intended use case. It could elaborate on the structure of each candidate match, but the schema covers parameters and the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds guidance on combining `names` and `bundleIds` ('Pass either `names` or `bundleIds` (or both)') and clarifies that the returned URLs are for adding to PrivacyTracker. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 ('Search') with a clear resource ('iTunes Store for App Store entries') and identifies the key search dimensions (name or bundle id). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_apps or get_app by framing the result as candidate matches for adding to PrivacyTracker.

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 explains the tool's context: search the App Store to find apps to add to PrivacyTracker. It also instructs to pass either `names` or `bundleIds` (or both). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for retrieving existing apps, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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