App privacy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether privacy labels may be absent for some apps, whether the result is region-dependent, or whether the call requires an existing app record. For a lookup whose payload is often missing or partial, that omission is material.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundant restatement of the title. It is efficiently worded, though its brevity is part of why behavioral and usage context is absent.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, so a short description is defensible. However, with no output schema, the description gives no hint of what the privacy label response contains or how missing data appears, leaving a real gap for the agent.

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 the id parameter documented with an example and country documented as a two-letter code defaulting to us, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional meaning about how id or country affect the returned privacy label, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' plus the specific resource 'App Privacy (nutrition label) details' makes the retrieval target unambiguous, and the parenthetical clarifies what data class is returned. It is distinguishable from siblings such as app_details and app_ratings by resource name, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over app_details or app_ratings, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The only usable signal is the restated purpose, which leaves the agent to infer selection from the tool name alone.

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