Search apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation detail: what a result card contains and the asymmetry between stores ('Myket cards only name and tagline (ap_app has the rest)'), which sets expectations for result completeness.

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?

Front-loaded with what it does and what it returns, followed by routing and per-store caveats; every sentence carries information. The clause 'ap_app has the rest' is slightly parenthetical but still 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back; it names package names, ratings and store URLs and then qualifies store-specific payload differences. Pagination and limits live in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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%, including store enum semantics and per-store page sizes, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only indirect meaning (search is by name, Persian or English is already in the schema), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Cafe Bazaar and/or Myket for apps and games by name') plus the scope of each store, and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ap_app and ap_compare as the follow-up tools. An agent can tell it apart from ap_top/ap_categories without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow ('Use first to find a package name, then ap_app for details or ap_compare for both stores'), which is clear routing guidance. It does not cover when an agent should skip search entirely (e.g. ap_top for charts or ap_categories for browsing), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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