search_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields but does not specify that the operation is read-only, does not discuss rate limits, pagination behavior (though schema has limit/offset), or authentication requirements. The description provides some transparency but is not comprehensive.

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: one states purpose and outputs, the other provides critical context (need for adamId). Every word adds value with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, return fields, and subsequent use of adamId. It does not explain pagination, error scenarios, or response format, but these are partially addressed by the input schema (limit/offset). Overall, it is complete enough for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds value by mentioning the return fields (adamId, name, developerName, country availability), which indirectly clarifies the query parameter's intent. However, since the schema already provides descriptions, the additional semantic contribution is modest, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 searches the App Store for apps to target/advertise, listing specific return fields (adamId, name, developerName, country availability). The verb 'search' and resource 'App Store' are specific, and the description distinguishes from siblings like 'apps_get' which retrieves a specific app.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to find apps for advertising) and emphasizes the need for adamId for campaign creation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to understand the primary use case.

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