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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that each search is live, fan-out is capped at 20, results are labeled estimated:true, and this is a snapshot rather than historical tracking. These details add meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 deliver the essential information without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value: scope, live-search behavior, and the estimated/snapshot nature.

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 no output schema, the description covers key behavioral caveats: live search, fan-out cap, estimated flag, and point-in-time semantics. Combined with the rich annotations and complete parameter schema, this gives an agent sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides full descriptions for all five parameters, including max 20 keywords and defaults for country/lang. The description adds the live-search and fan-out behavior but does not significantly enhance parameter-level semantics 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 clearly states the tool returns point-in-time ASO keyword rank for one app across up to 20 keywords, using a specific verb and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_aso_keywords by emphasizing this is a rank snapshot, not tracking or keyword discovery.

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 provides clear context: use for a current rank snapshot with up to 20 keywords, with a live search per keyword and fan-out cap. It explicitly says this is not rank tracking over time, offering a when-not-to-use cue, though it does not name an alternative tool for tracking.

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