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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds one useful data caveat by repeating 'stated' revenue (i.e., self-reported, not verified), but says nothing about result ordering stability, ties, or how many rows the caller should expect given the limit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ranking metrics are presented as a parallel list that is easy to scan. It is dense enough that the parenthetical keyword for each metric doubles as the enum value, which is efficient rather than wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should have clarified the return shape (ranked tools with which metrics attached, and whether limit caps the returned rows). Ranking behavior and the metric definitions are covered, but the response contract is not.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full load and does so for the enum, defining count, revenue, median, and trending in terms an agent can map to intent. The limit parameter is left implicit, though its purpose is largely conveyed by the schema's default of 10 and max of 20.

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?

States a specific verb (Rank) plus resource (AI build tools) and enumerates the four ranking dimensions, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_tools or latest_apps, whose output (a listing of tools) overlaps with what this tool returns, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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 names the sort modes but never says when to choose this tool over list_tools, latest_apps, or search_apps, nor when it is inappropriate. In particular, 'trending' (new listings in last 30 days) clearly overlaps with latest_apps, and no guidance resolves that ambiguity.

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