get_downloads_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses granularity logic (daily for <32 days, monthly otherwise) and exclusion criteria for download types. Does not describe error handling or rate limits, but coverage is good for a simple query tool.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, granularity, count scope, and requirements. No redundant or unnecessary information; highly 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 does not explain the return format or fields of the summary. It covers purpose, parameters, and behaviors, but lacks detail on response structure, which is a gap.

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%. Description adds value by specifying default values for startDate (3 months ago) and endDate (today), and clarifying that appId comes from list_apps. This enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets first-time download counts aggregated by period. Distinguishes from siblings like get_sales_report by specifying it only counts new installs, excluding updates, re-downloads, and IAPs.

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?

Provides clear guidance on what the tool counts (new installs only) and requirements (ASC_VENDOR_NUMBER env var, appId from list_apps). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to all siblings.

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