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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds little beyond that, only noting it's a list endpoint. It doesn't describe return format, rate limits, or authentication, but the annotations carry most of the burden here.

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 that is reasonably concise but includes a documentation link that may not be immediately actionable for an agent. It is not front-loaded with key information like 'returns a list of supported Apple locations,' though that is present. The structure is acceptable but not optimal.

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 that this is a simple, parameterless listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it misses an opportunity to explain the practical use case (e.g., obtaining location identifiers for other App Data API calls) and does not mention the output schema, which could help the agent understand what to expect.

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, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless retrieval, and no contradiction exists.

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 a specific verb ('receive the list') and resource ('Apple locations supported in App Data API'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_dataforseo_app_google_locations, which performs the analogous function for Google. It relies on the tool name and context to make that distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the Google locations sibling or explain that this is for discovering valid Apple location identifiers needed for other App Data API calls. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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