googleplay_ratings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what the tool returns (ratings-and-reviews breakdown by device) and the default parameters. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation or describe any potential quirks, such as behavior for unavailable devices or locale-specific variations. The description is adequate but not deeply 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Get Google Play ratings by device'), followed by the return shape and defaults. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return value shape (one entry each for phone, tablet, and Chromebook) and states default parameters. For a simple read-only tool with three well-documented parameters, this is sufficient. It does not specify exact fields within each entry (e.g., rating values, counts), but the description covers the essential context for 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters having basic descriptions (e.g., 'Two-letter language code'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by specifying default values for country and lang (`country=us`, `lang=en`) and clarifying that app_id refers to the Google Play package name, which is not fully clear from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get Google Play ratings by device') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like googleplay_reviews by explaining it returns the ratings-and-reviews breakdown under device tabs (phone, tablet, Chromebook). It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 appropriate usage context by stating it returns the device-specific ratings breakdown and provides defaults for country and language. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the clarity of purpose makes it clear when this tool should be selected over the many other Google Play sibling tools.

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