hive_app_details

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: listingExtras is only present for App Store apps and is null when not measured, and each measurement carries its own measuredAt/day. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

The highest-value content — what the tool returns and the identifier it takes — is front-loaded, and the listingExtras caveat follows as a subordinate clause. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema. Slightly long, but not padded.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing the return payload, including the App Store-only listingExtras block and its null semantics, plus the identifier and storefront inputs. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/edge-case behavior (invalid id, unavailable storefront) is unaddressed.

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 both appId and country are already documented in the schema. The description restates the id formats and the storefront scope but adds no syntax beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: 'Any app's store record in one storefront', then enumerates the fields (name, rating, version, price, distribution, badge, IAP count). That is far more precise than a bare 'get details'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_app, hive_search_apps, or hive_similar_apps, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The sentence about accepting an App Store id or a Google Play package name tells the agent what input is legal, but not when this tool is the right one to pick over get_app or find_apps. With so many overlapping app-lookup siblings, this is a real gap.

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