find_apps

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description layers on substantial behavioral detail annotations cannot convey: the credit cost model (20 for the list, 50 more per row with figures or revenue/download/growth filters), the noEstimate exclusion behavior, and the meaning of the coverage field. This is exactly the value-add expected beyond structured metadata.

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?

A dense, front-loaded paragraph: purpose first, then the estimates behavior, then cost, then the coverage caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information (filters, estimates, cost tiers, noEstimate, coverage), appropriate for a 17-parameter tool with no wasted 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 a complex 17-param tool with no output schema, the description still conveys the return shape sufficiently: per-row estimated figures with the day of the figure, noEstimate, and coverage. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the parameters in natural language (chart kinds, storefront, rank range, first-seen date, revenue/downloads/growth) but adds little syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already documents, e.g. the 'e.g. 20' percent hint is already in growthMin's schema text.

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 with scope: 'Find apps across the top charts we measure', then enumerates the chart types and filterable dimensions. An agent immediately knows this is a chart-based app search. It does not explicitly name or exclude siblings (e.g. hive_search_apps, search, market_charts), so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 clear context for when the tool applies (apps on the measured top charts, filterable by a well-defined set of dimensions) and explains the estimates flag ('Pass estimates: true to get each row's monthly revenue and downloads'). No explicit when-not or named alternatives are offered, so it's strong context without exclusions.

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