check_app_upgrade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and external-network behavior are covered structurally. The description adds the data-flow detail (installed version sourced from sys_scope, compared against public Store history) and that release notes are returned, but says nothing about failure modes when an app is not found in the Store or how the catalog search resolves ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then the use case, with no filler. The second sentence is a sentence fragment ('For upgrade planning of...'), which reads slightly awkwardly, but the content 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 carries the burden of describing results, and it does state that the release notes of every newer version are returned. Remaining gaps (ordering limits, behavior when no newer version exists) are minor for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine routing semantics beyond the schema: the listing_id vs store_query vs default-app-name fallback chain. That mutual-exclusivity/fallback logic is not obvious from the schema alone.

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+resource: compares the installed version (from sys_scope on the instance) against the public Store version history and returns release notes for newer versions. The comparison framing implicitly separates it from get_store_app_versions/search_store_apps, but it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Gives concrete usage context – 'For upgrade planning of Store apps (VR, ACC Framework, ...), whose lifecycle is independent of platform upgrades' – which tells the agent when this applies versus platform-upgrade tooling. It also routes between parameter modes ('Provide either listing_id, or store_query / nothing'), but offers no explicit 'do not use when' exclusion.

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