marketplace_get_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It signals a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Returns' and clarifies accepted identifier forms, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or authentication expectations; for a simple read this is a moderate gap.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into Args and Returns sections. Every line adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return behavior sufficiently. It is slightly incomplete only in that it does not guide the agent toward sibling tools for discovery or clarify when this getter should be chosen over related marketplace functions.

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 only defines app_id as a string, while the description adds substantial meaning: it explains that the parameter can be an ID, name, short_name, or image_id and provides concrete examples. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific application') and communicates singular lookup semantics. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as marketplace_search_applications, so it misses the strongest form of differentiation, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like marketplace_search_applications or marketplace_get_applications_by_vendor. The usage context is only implied: use it when you already have an app_id and want details. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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