appstore_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval operation via the verb 'Retrieve' and provides context about the data source ('App Store lookup API') and normalization. However, it does not explain what happens if neither identifier is provided (schema says required: []), nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. The verb 'Retrieve' implies safety, but the ambiguity around required parameters is a gap.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. It covers what the tool does, the source API, the identifier options, and platform coverage without any redundant or filler content. Excellent 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides key information (identifiers, platform coverage) but leaves gaps: it does not clarify how the tool behaves when no id/app_id is provided (schema lists no required params), does not describe the return format beyond 'normalized metadata', and does not mention default behaviors for flags like ratings or platforms. For a simple retrieval tool it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful relational information by stating that `id` and `app_id` are alternatives ('Provide either'), which is not apparent from the schema alone. It also clarifies that both can identify any platform. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 'Retrieve full App Store app details', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like appstore_reviews, appstore_ratings, and appstore_search by emphasizing 'full details' and mentioning the lookup API. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 usage by instructing users to provide either `id` or `app_id` and notes that these can identify iPhone/iPad/Mac listings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., appstore_reviews for reviews), nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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