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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers by spelling out the returned metrics per tracked search, which the agent could not otherwise infer. The one soft spot is the fixed '7 days ago' comparison, which is not reconciled with the `days` history parameter.

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 that starts with the verb and scope before listing payload fields; there is no filler or redundant framing. It is dense with a long enumeration, but every listed item carries information about the return value.

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, describing the returned fields is essential and the description does that well. However, it omits how `include_history` changes the payload and how `days` affects the reported positions, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape for those option combinations.

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 all three parameters (days, app_id, include_history) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it never explains that `days` bounds the history window or that `include_history` expands the response with daily positions.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Shows the apps the user tracks in Fledly') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: today's App Store position, position 7 days ago, best position, popularity, difficulty, and competitors. That distinguishes it from single-app siblings like get_app, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 guidance and no alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'the apps the user tracks' implies a scope (only tracked apps), but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_app, get_competitor_report, or track_app, and no prerequisites are stated.

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