Apptiller

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond the annotations: that no authentication is required to call it, which matters for an agent operating before sign-up. It stops short of describing response shape, but annotations carry the rest.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates covered topics, with no filler. The comma-separated content list is dense but each item maps to a distinct thing an agent might need, so nothing feels wasted.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by listing the covered subject areas (plans, prices, feature gating, sign-up). For a simple zero-arg informational tool this is close to sufficient; only the response format itself is unstated.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs the schema does not have.

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 enumerates the specific content the tool returns: what Apptiller does for App Store apps and websites, plans and prices, feature-to-plan mapping, and owner connection/sign-up flow. This is clearly an informational/overview tool, distinguishable from action siblings like start_sign_up or submit_launch, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'Returns' or 'Explains'.

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?

'No sign-in needed' implies it is safe to call before authenticating, which is useful context relative to start_sign_up. However, it never states when to prefer this over free_app_check or browse_launches, nor does it say the tool is the entry point for understanding pricing before signing up; the routing is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact record shape, the existence of a per-launch page, and the ranking rule ('ranked by verified revenue added, never by votes'), which is non-obvious and affects interpretation of the results.

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 names the resource first, then enumerates return fields, then qualifies the ranking. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the parenthetical is the only clause that carries non-obvious information.

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 burden of describing return content and does so field by field, including the ranking basis. Minor gaps remain: board size/pagination behavior, sort direction, and whether 'its page' is a URL or a path are unstated, but an agent can call it correctly without them.

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 the call is argument-free and fully scoped to the current launch period, leaving nothing for the schema to explain beyond an empty object.

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?

Concrete verb+resource+scope: it names the board ('the current launch period's board on Apptiller Launches') and enumerates the fields returned. An agent can tell it apart from submit_launch or about_apptiller by the fact that it reads the board, though siblings are not named 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated – 'current launch period' signals this is the live-read tool, and the ranking note hints at a browsing/inspection purpose. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or caveats about what 'current' means.

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

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

The readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile, yet the description adds substantial behavior: the check is free and public, returns only US listing facts, excludes Google Play, is capped at one full run per account, and the one result per product is shared for 24 hours. Those quota, regional and retention details are exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

The purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the alternative path and caveats. It is information-dense rather than padded, though the aside about the full check's contents ('ranks for five searches, what ChatGPT names, a subtitle to try') is more than this tool needs to be callable.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no nesting, the description is complete: it spells out what comes back for each input type (US listing facts, or what the home page shows search engines and whether it links to the App Store), so no return-value guessing is required. The unsupported-platform note closes the remaining ambiguity.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100 percent schema description coverage, and the schema already says 'App Store link or id, or a website domain or URL'. The description restates the accepted inputs (link or id, domain) without adding format, normalization, or error-handling detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'a free public read of an App Store app (its link or id) or a website (its domain)', and immediately scopes it by naming the data returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling start_sign_up, which is required for the 'full check', so an agent can pick between them without opening either 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?

Gives a clear exclusion ('Google Play is not supported') and names the alternative path (start_sign_up, then run the full check from the returned page) along with the once-per-account limit that selects it. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you only need a quick free preview' directive, but the routing is easy to infer from the contrast drawn.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: nothing is created until the recipient clicks, the link expires in 24 hours, and the same call doubles as a sign-in path for existing accounts. It does not mention that repeated invocation sends additional emails, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with the expiry and identity constraints following. No filler; the Google sign-in aside is the only borderline sentence and it still resolves a likely agent question.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, timing, consent requirement, and the dual create-or-sign-in outcome. The only gap is what the call returns immediately (confirmation of send) and whether re-calling is safe, which the 24-hour window implies but does not state.

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% for the single required email field, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns the extra point by constraining whose address it must be (the owner's), which the schema's "The owner's email address" mostly states but the consent framing reinforces.

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 a specific verb and outcome: it emails the owner a link that either creates their free Apptiller account or signs them in. Nothing in the sibling set (about_apptiller, browse_launches, free_app_check, submit_launch) overlaps with account provisioning, so an agent can route this unambiguously.

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?

"Use the owner's own address, with their go-ahead" gives clear precondition guidance on whose address is legal and that consent is required. There is no explicit when-not or alternative named, but no sibling tool competes for this job, so the omission is minor.

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

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, not destructive); the description goes far beyond by explaining that the submission is held and non-public, gated on an emailed link with a 24-hour window, owner sign-in and confirmation, and by spelling out the verification and ranking prerequisites (App Store Connect key or TXT record; RevenueCat or Stripe). It also discloses the irreversible public-exposure consequence: name, tagline and launch-period numbers become public.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences cover lifecycle, verification, ranking and constraints without outright padding. The ranking explanation ('by the revenue it adds in its launch period') is the least essential detail and could be trimmed, but overall density is high.

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?

For a 7-parameter, non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, the description covers process state, ownership rules and public consequences thoroughly. It stops short of telling the agent what a successful call returns (a pending submission? a confirmation record?) or how failures such as an already-launched product surface.

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?

With 71% schema coverage the baseline is already high, but the description adds real meaning by binding parameters to kind: link is an App Store link/id for an app or a domain for a site, and name is required only for a website. It does not explain hide_amounts or elaborate on email ownership beyond 'for the owner', leaving one gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (submits), the two resource types (app via App Store link/id, or website via domain plus name), and the destination (Apptiller Launches, for the owner). The purpose is unmistakable and functionally distinct from browse_launches or about_apptiller, though no sibling is named explicitly to complete the differentiation.

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 rather than stated: it embeds preconditions (an owner email is required, a product launches once per account, an owner-proven product cannot be re-launched by others) but never says when to choose this over browse_launches or what to do if a launch already exists. The constraints are a partial substitute for explicit when/when-not guidance.

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