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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive open-world operation. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral detail: for App Store, a developer name is resolved by search, which affects expectations about lookup behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by store-specific identifier guidance. There is no redundant restatement of annotations or schema fields.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. Remaining minor gaps, such as pagination behavior and return shape, are implied by the limit parameter and listing nature.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-store semantics: Google Play uses a developer name, while App Store can use developer_id from other tools or a name that triggers a lookup. This meaningfully supplements the schema descriptions.

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 and resource: "List the apps published by one developer." This clearly separates it from siblings like get_app (single app) and search_apps (search), and the store-specific detail reinforces the exact scope.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on how to identify the developer per store and points to get_app/search_apps for obtaining an App Store developer_id. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_apps, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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