Search apps

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. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination behavior, the compact-vs-full result modes, ranking, or that results come from an external live store that can vary by country.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the heavier informational burden entirely to the schema.

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 7-parameter, paginated, external-store search with no output schema, the description omits anything about result shape, pagination limits, or the idsOnly/verbose trade-offs. An agent could call it correctly on `term` alone but would be guessing about everything else.

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 schema itself documents num, page, lang, country, idsOnly, and verbose thoroughly. The description only echoes the required `term` parameter ("matching a term") and adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 states a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("the App Store for apps") plus the matching criterion ("matching a term"), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish it from siblings like search_suggestions, list_apps, or similar_apps, which all operate on apps.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_apps (browsing) or search_suggestions (autocomplete). The agent must infer from the name alone which sibling to call.

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