search-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 describes the tool's behavior with and without a query, and the store filter functionality. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially since there's no output schema).

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 appropriately concise with three bullet points that efficiently cover the main functionality. Each bullet earns its place by providing distinct information about different usage scenarios. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the core 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 search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the basic behavior and parameter usage but doesn't address the return format, error handling, or data source limitations. Given the lack of output schema, more information about what gets returned would be helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that the query searches by specific fields (slug, bundleId, packageName, name) and that the store filter narrows results. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide significant additional context.

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 tool searches registered apps from a specific JSON file, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aso-to-public' or 'validate-aso' which might also involve app data, leaving room for potential confusion about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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 provides implicit guidance on when to use the tool with or without a query parameter, and mentions using the store filter to narrow results. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., 'keyword-research' might also search app data), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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