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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond structured fields: the call is 'Free' (a cost disclosure no annotation captures) and the return shape is per-page with a ppid. It omits pagination or result-count behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One information-dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the key usage detail. It is a verbless fragment ('The app's custom product pages...'), which is slightly awkward but costs no clarity or space.

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 that results are per-page with ppids, and annotations cover the safety profile. It still leaves the appId parameter undefined and says nothing about pagination or result limits, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% for the single appId parameter, and the description never explains it directly — it only weakly implies app scoping via 'The app's'. With one undocumented param and essentially no compensating text, it does not meet the baseline for an adequately documented parameter.

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 identifies the resource (the app's custom product pages in App Store Connect) and what each item carries (a ppid), which distinguishes it from the sibling app_cpp_create write tool. The list verb is only implied by the title, not stated in the description itself, so it falls short of the 5 benchmark.

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?

It gives a concrete downstream use for the ppid values — linking from a shipfound.site page (app_site) or an Apple Ads ad group — which implies when you'd call it. However, it names no alternative tool and states no condition for choosing this over app_cpp_create or other listing tools, leaving the routing to inference.

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