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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a ranked table with specific fields ('tier, score, rating and scale'), which gives the agent a clear expectation of the result. It also explains the core behavioral premise ('large user base but clearly unhappy'). For a read-only ranking tool, this is adequate transparency, though it omits any mention of data sources, latency, or edge cases.

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 sentences carry the core purpose, the output format, and the usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a discovery tool: it names the output shape (ranked table with tier, score, rating, scale) and the intended position in the workflow (first step). With 7 optional parameters all documented in the schema and no required inputs, the missing details are not critical for invocation, though it could briefly mention that all filters are optional.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level details because the schema already documents each parameter with descriptions, defaults, and examples. No additional semantic value is provided by the description beyond what the schema offers.

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 states a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('App Store opportunities'), and additionally specifies the distinguishing criterion: apps with a large user base and unhappy users (unmet demand). It also positions itself as the entry point tool, setting it apart from siblings like explain_method or get_opportunity_brief.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this first when deciding what app to build', which gives clear usage context. It does not name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'first' instruction effectively signals the intended workflow among the sibling tools.

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