hive_similar_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: results are in shelf order, carry a read-date for freshness, and the categories reflect the store's own placement of the app.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the shelf is and which platforms it maps to. The trailing sentence about categories is interpretive but earns its place by explaining a non-obvious field.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the fields returned (category, name, publisher, day read) and the ordering. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents both appId and country, including the empty-country behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or semantics beyond the schema baseline, which is the expected 3.

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: it returns the store's own similar-apps shelf, with named equivalents for both platforms (Apple's You Might Also Like, Google's Similar apps). That is far clearer than a generic 'get similar apps', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly-scoped sibling get_rivals.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for reading store-suggested apps, but there is no when/when-not guidance and no mention of get_rivals or hive_search_apps as alternatives. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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