appstore_editorial

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it discloses the return content, clarifies that output mirrors the device-switcher content, and most valuably documents a concrete failure mode — `device=watch` with `section=arcade` returns 400. This error-case disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral context that prevents wasted calls, though it stops short of covering auth, rate limits, or output structure.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause and supporting enum/error detail following. Each sentence earns its place and there is no filler, though the enumeration of device values in prose partially duplicates the schema's enum array.

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 4-param, 1-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the legal device/section combinations, and the one invalid combination's error. The absence of an output schema means return structure is only hinted at ('curated editorial shelves'), but for a landing-page fetch the inputs are the main decision points and they are fully explained.

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. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by interpreting the two enums: it lists the device values inline and explains what `main` (Today/Discover/Apps & Games) and `arcade` (Apple Arcade landing page) actually resolve to, plus the watch+arcade incompatibility. This is value not present in the schema's terse field labels.

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+resource ('Retrieve an App Store device or Arcade editorial landing page') and immediately states what is returned ('curated editorial shelves'). It also grounds the meaning with a real-world reference (apps.apple.com's device switcher), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like appstore_editorial_category or appstore_search.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies (per-device landing pages, main vs. arcade sections) and implicitly scopes it as the landing-page tool rather than a category or search tool. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g., appstore_editorial_category) or states when-not-to-use it, so routing an agent to the right sibling still requires inference.

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