storelift

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that results are never averaged, explains the semantics of `engines` and `providers`, and emphasizes that `not_measured` is not a zero. It also warns that AI answers are non-deterministic and advises reading trends rather than single measurements. This is substantial contextual detail beyond what any schema or annotation would provide.

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 moderately long but each sentence adds value: it states the purpose, explains the reporting units, defines field meanings, and gives interpretation guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then organized logically. While it could be tightened slightly, it is well-structured and not padded.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure (engines and providers) and clarifies important states. It provides enough detail for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to interpret it. It does not mention pagination or error cases, but for a simple data retrieval tool with only two parameters, the description is largely complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (appId and country). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific explanation beyond what the schema provides, so it does not enhance the semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the documentation load.

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 states precisely what the tool does: determines whether AI assistants name the app when asked about its category, reported per engine. It names the engines (Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini) and clarifies that it is an observation, not a ranking. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_charts or get_reviews, which address different data domains.

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 implicit usage context (e.g., it measures AI visibility, so use when you need that) and important interpretive guidance (not a ranking, read trends). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to an alternative tool. Since no sibling overlaps directly, the lack of explicit exclusion is minor, but there is no direct 'when to use this' statement.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that Google Play is deliberately excluded and that historical data is included, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention read-only status or error handling, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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 core purpose and followed by a relevant exclusion explanation. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns 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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers the main points: what it returns, scope, and why Google Play is excluded. Minor gap: the schema marks country as optional but the description implies it is needed, which could cause slight confusion.

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% for both parameters, each with descriptive text. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that it is per-country, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (App Store chart position) with clear scope: one country, list types (free/paid/grossing), and category. It explicitly distinguishes from Google Play, which sets it apart from any potential sibling tool. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

Provides clear context (App Store, one country) and an explicit exclusion (Google Play) explaining why it is absent. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer siblings like get_history, so the routing guidance is only partial.

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?

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully explains the return format as '[day, rank]' and clarifies the semantic difference between a null rank (absence from top results) and a bad rank, which is valuable non-obvious behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or the safe read-only nature of the operation.

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. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a precise, necessary interpretation of null values without extra verbosity.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what the data represents secret, how the series is structured, and how nulls should be interpreted. Minor gaps such as date range, ordering, or default country behavior exist, but the tool is small enough that the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds slight extra meaning by reinforcing the country scope ('for one country'), which helps clarify the optional-looking country parameter arena, but it adds no new detail about appId or formatting. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters without exceeding it.

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 phrase 'Keyword rank history for one country' clearly identifies the resource and scope, and it differentiates the tool from siblings like get_keywords, which likely lists keywords rather than time series. The description lacks an explicit verb like 'get', but the resource and purpose are unambiguous enough.

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 implies that results are scoped to one country, which hints at the country parameter, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as get_keywords or get_charts. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does an unusually strong job: it explains three distinct output states and warns against collapsing them, which is critical behavioral context for producing correct results. It does not cover every possible behavior like authentication or output shape, but the core interpretational trap is thoroughly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, and the second sentence explains the most important caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the central non-obvious behavior that an agent must know: the difference between measured=false, rank=null, and rank=number. It is slightly light on the exact structure of the returned data, but the essential context needed to call and interpret the tool is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents appId, country, and platform, including defaults. The description reinforces that the tool is scoped to one app and one country but does not add substantive parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource as keyword ranks and states the precise scope: one app, one country, one platform. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_charts and get_reviews by using the specific term 'keyword ranks' and naming App Store / Google Play country scoping.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use for keyword rank data, but it never explicitly explains when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, so the usage guidance is mostly inferred from the stated purpose.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full behavioral disclosure and does so well. It explains the App Store vs Google Play differences, the meaning of newCount, and the crucial distinction between null and empty lists. This goes well beyond minimal expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then details field semantics in a dense but organized way. Every sentence adds meaningful information, though the density around null handling could be slightly clearer with more structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining response semantics. It covers platform-specific differences, null vs zero, and empty-list meaning, which are exactly the ambiguous cases an agent would face. The information is sufficient to call and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents appId and country fully. The description adds context by emphasizing 'one country' and clarifying review feed behavior, but it does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool returns recent reviews for one country, with appId and country as the relevant inputs. It identifies the resource clearly, though it does not explicitly mention the app dimension beyond the schema and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving recent reviews for a specific app/country, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions compared with siblings like get_charts or get_store_page. The use case is inferable rather than stated.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (keywords, theirRank, ourRank) and the meaning of a null ourRank, which is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'gets rivals'. It does not mention pagination or errors, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then explains the returned data efficiently. Every clause adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essential return data and null semantics, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It does not explicitly cover edge cases like empty results or default country behavior, but those are minor and likely inferable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents appId, country, and platform. The description adds minimal parameter context – it references 'this app' but does not elaborate on the parameters or their defaults beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: it returns apps ranking above the specified app in search, and details the data for each rival (keywords, their rank, our rank, and null semantics). This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like get_keywords or get_charts, which focus on different aspects.

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?

Usage is implied by the description – it is for seeing competitors ranking above the app – but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer its place among the listed tools.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the important measured=false distinction, clarifies that timeline lists detected listing changes, and scopes what fields are and are not included. It does not mention rate limits, freshness, or explicit read-only guarantees, but it covers the key semantic traps for a retrieval tool.

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 dense but every sentence contributes distinct information: what is returned, what timeline means, and what measured=false signifies. The first sentence is somewhat heavy with parentheticals and long lists, but it is well front-loaded and avoids fluff.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source for return semantics. It covers the main returned fields and the two tricky fields, but it fails to clarify the default behavior when the optional country parameter is absent. Given the description stresses 'for one country,' an agent needs to know which country is used by default.

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 100%, so both appId and country are already documented. The description reinforces the one-country scope but adds little parameter-level meaning. Notably, country is optional in the schema, yet the description does not state what happens when it is omitted, leaving a meaningful ambiguity.

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 direct statement that the tool returns the app's own store listing signals, then enumerates concrete fields such as version, in-app events, editorial placements, screenshots, install count, and rating histogram. It also explicitly notes what is excluded (name and subtitle), making the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings that target charts, keywords, reviews, or rivals.

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 meaningful context by calling the timeline 'the cheapest explanation for a rank move,' which implies when an agent would want this tool. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus siblings like get_charts or get_history, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only listing behavior and adds the useful dependency context that returned appIds are prerequisites for other tools. While it does not mention pagination or rate limits, these are not critical for a simple list operation, and the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and its role.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality and the fields returned, front-loading the most critical information. The second sentence adds a precise usage directive. Every phrase earns 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 listing tool with no output schema, the description fully equips an agent: it names the resource, enumerates the returned fields, and explains why and when to call it. There is nothing additional an agent needs to invoke it 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline rule for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description contributes no redundant information and does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('apps tracked in this Storelift account'), and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, countries, keywords). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, which all retrieve specific attribute data for a single app rather than listing all apps.

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?

Explicitly states the intended invocation order ('Call this first') and the reason ('every other tool needs an appId from here'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus the siblings and establishes a dependency relationship.

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