app-data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'V1 App Apple Details'. It does not state whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires a trackId or term, what it returns, or any side effects. The behavior is almost entirely opaque.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. 'V1 App Apple Details' is a version marker and title fragment, not a purposeful description. It earns no credit for efficiency because it conveys almost no usable 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?

For a tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what the tool returns, or how it differs from the sibling search and review tools. The context signals show a high-complexity situation that the description fails to address.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the three parameters (term, country, trackId). The parameter names hint at an iTunes lookup, but the description adds no meaning about how they relate, which are required, or what formats are expected.

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 'V1 App Apple Details' is essentially a version label, not a statement of what the tool does. It names the resource ('App Apple Details') but lacks a verb or any functional explanation, so an agent cannot tell what action this tool performs or how it differs from siblings like app_apple_search or app_apple_reviews.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus app_apple_search, app_apple_reviews, or the Google Play siblings. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and parameters.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the tool's name. It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, data freshness, or whether the tool fetches reviews for a single app or multiple apps, so the agent has no insight into side effects or operational constraints.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It front-loads nothing useful and every word merely echoes the tool name, so the single sentence does not earn its place.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how to set parameters, or how it differs from sibling review/detail tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter information. The schema itself only gives names and types (pages, country, trackId), leaving the agent to guess what each parameter means, what formats are expected, and how they interact.

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 'V1 App Apple Reviews' is a label rather than a statement of function. It names the resource (Apple app reviews) but lacks a verb or any explanation of what the tool does with reviews, and it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like app_apple_details or app_gplay_reviews.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes app_apple_details and app_gplay_reviews, but the description does not mention them or provide any selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about query behavior, result ordering, pagination, or side effects — not even confirming this is a read-only lookup. Only the word 'Search' suggests an operation.

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 text is short but not concise — it is an under-specified label rather than a structured description. It has no sentence, no front-loaded information, and no details that help invocation. This is placeholder-level brevity, not economy.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools that need disambiguation, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool correctly based on the provided text.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. 'term', 'limit', and 'country' are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without any clue whether 'term' is a query string or app ID, what 'limit' bounds, or what format 'country' should take.

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 is 'V1 App Apple Search' — essentially a version label and a restatement of the tool name. It gestures at searching Apple apps but provides no specific verb-object statement beyond what the name already says, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like app_apple_details or app_apple_reviews.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The name implies a search over Apple App Store data, but the description never states that this is the discovery step versus app_apple_details or app_apple_reviews. The agent must infer the entire selection context.

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavior—whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, makes a network call, or returns processed versus raw data. 'Details' implies retrieval but provides no operational context.

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 short, but that is underspecification rather than conciseness. It front-loads a version marker and a restatement of the name, offering no useful substance.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an unexplained parameter, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what details are returned, what appId should look like, or how this tool relates to its siblings.

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 has one parameter, appId, with no description, and the tool description adds nothing about its format, meaning, or optionality. The schema's 'default: null' is not enough for an agent to supply a correct value.

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 'V1 App Gplay Details' is a bare title fragment; it gives no verb or explicit resource scope and mostly restates the tool name. It weakly signals Google Play details as opposed to Apple, but does not meet a clear purpose statement.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like app_gplay_reviews or app_apple_details. Since there is no exclusion or context cue, agents are left to infer the choice.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool reads data, whether authentication is needed, whether any limits or pagination apply, or what side effects might occur. The description conveys almost no behavioral information.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every word is essentially duplicated by the tool name, and no useful operational detail is front-loaded.

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?

Given four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. There is no mention of expected output, parameter constraints, or typical usage.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters (lang, appId, count, country). It does not explain expected formats, optionality, defaults, or how the parameters influence the result.

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 'V1 App Gplay Reviews' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, with no verb or explicit action such as 'fetch' or 'list'. It names the resource (Google Play reviews) but does not explain what the tool does with it or how it differs from siblings like app_gplay_details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as app_apple_reviews or app_gplay_details. No context is given about required inputs, typical scenarios, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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