Track an app

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them — that the listing import and keyword seeding run asynchronously in the background and only surface in get_overview on completion. It does not mention duplicate/re-add behavior, which is notable given idempotentHint=false, nor auth/permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it creates, what inputs it accepts plus where to get them, and what happens afterwards. Front-loaded with the core action; zero filler.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers creation semantics, input sourcing, and the async completion signal. It leaves out failure/duplicate handling and whether a job id is returned, which an agent calling a non-idempotent background job could use.

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 every field including ai, brief, markets, folderId and mainLocale is already documented in the schema; the description adds only the identifier-form summary already present in the 'app' field. Baseline 3 applies where the schema does the heavy lifting and the prose adds no new parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Start tracking an app as a project', with an explicit scope split ('your own app (kind mine) or a competitor') and accepted identifier forms. It is clearly distinguishable from neighbors like add_console_apps or link_released_app because it creates a tracking project rather than a console listing.

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?

Names the prerequisite path explicitly: 'find it with search_store', and tells the agent what to check afterwards ('the new project appears in get_overview when the job finishes'). It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., versus add_console_apps or link_released_app), so no exclusions are given.

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