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

Far exceeds the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explains under_review ordering and display rules, ranking_status thresholds ('under_review' vs 'too_few' vs fewer than 6 apps), the missing_since recommendation hazard, and merged-category slug redirection. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret the response correctly.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then conditional edge-case rules. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but virtually every clause carries distinct, actionable information about the payload semantics.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the response shape—member fields, the two app-summary variants, ordering, statuses, and special cases—and does so comprehensively. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a category response is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds a useful interpretive note by implying the whole tiered set is bounded (schema notes '40 is the whole tiered set' for limit). Marginal added value over schema but nothing contradictory.

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 the exact verb+resource ('tier list for one category') and enumerates the returned fields (tier, score, components, per-store ranks, confidence, verification). An agent can tell it apart from get_app (single app details, referenced explicitly) and list_categories (slug source) without opening a schema.

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?

Routes the agent to get_app / api_url for full app details and to list_categories for the slug, and explains the within-category-only meaning of positions. It doesn't contrast against search or compare_apps, but the core usage conditions are clear.

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