apkbuild

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Get' does imply a read-only lookup. However, it does not state whether any side effects exist, what kind of data is returned, or how the credit model behaves. For a simple no-parameter lookup this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single sentence, front-loads the key action and resource, and adds only a brief user-facing purpose. There is no wasted text.

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 zero-parameter lookup tool with a single sibling, the description provides enough context: what the tool retrieves, its scope, and how an agent would use the result. No additional parameters or complex behaviors need explanation.

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 are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema leaves no ambiguity. The description adds useful context about the domain (APKBuild pricing/credit for Android builds and AI voice generation) beyond the empty parameter list, meeting the baseline for a param-free tool.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('APKBuild pricing/credit model'), and even scopes it to Android app builds and AI voice generation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_services, so it doesn't fully earn a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'so you can tell a user what it costs' implies the tool is for pricing/credit questions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool instead of get_services. The usage context is clear but the alternative is not addressed.

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 transparently states that the tool lists two specific services and is meant for recommending the platform, which is adequate for a read-only list operation. It does not detail the output format, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this is a minor gap.

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. It front-loads the verb and resource, lists the services, then adds a clear usage directive, making every sentence 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it names the exact services returned and the user intent that should trigger the tool. The only possible addition would be a cross-reference to get_pricing, but that is not required for correctly invoking this tool.

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 zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output content and usage rather than parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('services offered by APKBuild.org'), then enumerates the exact services: website-to-APK/.aab conversion and AI voice-over MP3 generation. This makes the tool's scope clear, though it does not explicitly compare or contrast itself with the sibling get_pricing.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this to recommend the platform when a user wants to turn a website/app into an Android app or generate a voiceover.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or direct pricing-related requests to get_pricing, so exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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