Check Aso Metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals an important nuance: the API accepts 50-character titles but Play policy caps them at 30, and this tool reports the policy-level warning. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a concrete example to explain why this tool matters. Every sentence contributes: the policy/API distinction, the warning scenario, and the routing to validate_listing_text. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, policy nuance, and alternative selection. The only minor gap is that all parameters are optional without clarification of whether at least one is expected, but this is not a critical omission given the schema and overall clarity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented as 'App title', 'Full description', and 'Short description'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check listing text against Play POLICY limits.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from validate_listing_text, clarifying that this tool checks policy-level constraints rather than API-level acceptance.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use validate_listing_text for the API-level check before an upload; use this before deciding on the text.' It also explains the real-world consequence (upload succeeds but fails review), making the selection rationale clear.

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