get_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered without prose. The description adds only that the key is an App Store Connect ID; it says nothing about what "details" comprises, error behavior on an invalid ID, or rate limits.

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 single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriately sized for a one-parameter getter. It is efficient but so terse that it leaves no room for the differentiating or behavioral context the other dimensions lack.

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?

The tool is genuinely simple (1 required param, rich annotations), so little prose is required. However, with no output schema the word "details" leaves the return payload entirely unspecified, so an agent cannot anticipate whether it gets attributes, relationship links, or locale data.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the single appId parameter is already documented, and the description adds no format, example, or source-of-ID guidance beyond restating "App Store Connect app ID". Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 ("Get details for a specific app") plus the lookup key (App Store Connect ID), which cleanly separates it from list-oriented siblings such as list_apps. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative, but the singular-resource framing is unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching one known app rather than enumerating apps, but the description never says when to use it versus list_apps or what to do if the ID is unknown. No prerequisites or failure conditions are given.

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