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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by stating that it returns saved data and that asoCopy is null when none exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary return value and scope. The null-case detail is short and earns its place by setting expectations.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations already cover safety, so the description does not need to explain return values or read-only behavior. It covers the core retrieval scope and null case, though parameter documentation remains thin.

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. It clarifies that variantId can specify a listing variant and that the active variant is used otherwise, but it does not explain projectId or the UUID expectations for either parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns saved App Store/Google Play listing copy, insights, and translations for the active or specified variant. The phrase 'Does not publish or modify store listings' clearly distinguishes it from generate_store_listing and update_store_listing.

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 signals retrieval of saved listing data and explicitly excludes publishing or modifying, which helps route the agent away from mutation siblings. However, it does not name alternatives such as generate_store_listing or update_store_listing or state exactly when each should be used.

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