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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it works without an API key, is on a free tier, and is rate limited per IP per day — useful operational disclosure for a read-only tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, return shape second, operational constraint last. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 explains the return shape (overall score plus itemized checks), and annotations plus the rate-limit note round out the behavior. Only minor gaps remain, such as how scoring exceptions or missing data are surfaced.

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 store, country, and store_id are already fully documented in the schema (including the enum and defaults). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('ASO (App Store Optimization) audit score (0-100) for an app'), and enumerates the breakdown items (title length, keyword usage, screenshots, ratings). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like sonar_app_overview.

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 via the benefit clause 'so you can identify what to improve.' There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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