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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behaviour: a language whose listing changed in the last two weeks is 'held' so ranks can be read first, and each item carries 'record_action meta' so completion is tracked elsewhere. Against that, it never explains the size of the set, ordering/prioritisation, or what the caller receives, which matters for a tool with no output schema.

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 very long run-on sentences heavy with nested parentheses and internal jargon ('kind study: its key, the aso part its command names'). The actual purpose is not front-loaded — it appears mid-clause after a list of upstream sources. Substantial restructuring would be needed for an agent to skim it reliably.

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?

This is a composite aggregator over four-plus sibling tools with an empty schema and no output schema, so the description must carry close to the full load. It lists ingredients but omits the returned structure, item ordering, how many items, and how conflicts between sources are resolved — leaving real ambiguity about what a caller receives.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure and that scoping (which app, which week) is implicit, which matches the empty input schema.

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 names the source tools (app_audit, app_keywords, app_ranks, app_countries) and enumerates the item types it assembles, which does distinguish it from any single sibling. But it never states plainly what the tool returns or does — 'the week's set' is the only framing, and the opening clause is buried under a subordinate 'picked from' construction. An agent can infer it is a weekly ASO work-list assembler, but only after parsing two dense sentences.

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 by the title ('this week's App Store listing work') and by the 'Free' tail, suggesting a periodic planning call rather than a per-item call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like plan, seo_set, today, or listing_targets, and no stated preconditions (e.g., must app_audit have run first, what happens if a source tool has no data). The 'held' rule is a behaviour, not usage guidance.

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