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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explicitly stating 'Nothing is submitted anywhere - this only reads the text you pass in' and by disclosing the output concepts: wasted characters, what Apple indexes, and rewritten fields. This goes beyond the annotation metadata without contradicting it.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the result and side-effect profile. Every clause earns its place and is front-loaded for quick agent scanning.

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 read-only audit tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and that it has no side effects. The main gap is that the required 'country' parameter is not explained in the description, so an agent may not understand why it is needed or how it affects the audit. Still, the overall definition is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, including character limits and the comma-separated keyword field format. The description adds a little context by showing that the fields are audited together and rewritten as a set, but it does not add meaningful details beyond the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Audits') and a concrete target ('draft title, subtitle and 100-character keyword field against Apple's rules'). It also clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like add_keywords, list_keywords, or ranking_keywords, which operate on keywords or rankings rather than auditing metadata compliance.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you have a draft App Store metadata set and want to know what Apple will index and what is wasted. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but none of the siblings perform this audit function, so the intended use is well implied. It also reassures that nothing is submitted, which signals safe pre-submission use.

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