get_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is met structurally. The description then adds genuine value by describing what the read returns (per-country keyword tables, snapshot, platform ids), which annotations cannot convey.

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, zero filler, return content front-loaded and the prerequisite placed last where it reads as an actionable note.

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 carries the return-shape burden by naming the nested data (countries, keywords per country, snapshot). It stops short of pagination or sizing details, but for a single-read tool this is nearly complete.

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% and the schema already documents appId as 'app id from list_apps'. The description repeats the same sourcing hint without adding type, format, or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'get' a single 'tracked app', and it enumerates the payload (platform ids, countries, tracked keywords, latest snapshot). The 'one tracked app' framing cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_apps.

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 states the prerequisite and ordering: 'Use list_apps first to get the appId.' This tells the agent the required upstream call, though it gives no when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios beyond that one dependency.

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