Related apps

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). Beyond that, the description discloses a behavioral trait the annotations do not: the per-store variation in returned result groups (three for Bazaar, one for Myket), which materially affects how an agent interprets the output. Error/empty-result behavior is not covered.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core behavior and its store-specific nuance come first, and the usage/workflow hint follows. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the shape of the result (grouped related/also-installed/similar) and points to next-step tools, which is what an agent needs to act. Minor gaps remain around result size, pagination, or behavior for an unknown package.

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 both parameters (package, store) documented including an example package name and enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (list) and resource (related apps for one app), and adds the store-dependent result shape (Bazaar: three groups; Myket: one). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ap_search and ap_top without opening any 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 names the use case ('find alternatives or competitors of an app') and the follow-on workflow ('then ap_compare or ap_app on a result'). No explicit when-not-to-use or negative routing against siblings such as ap_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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