Get Store Listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a safe read ('Read') and that it works on public listings of any app, which implies no ownership requirement. It does not mention rate limits, authentication nuances, or that the listing is live store data, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the key differentiator ('any app's', 'including a competitor's') and contains zero filler or repetition.

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 simple read operation with a 100%-covered input schema and an output schema present, this description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly noting which sibling tool to use for the developer's own private listings, but the public-facing nature is already clear.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents app_id, country, and language. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('public store listing'), and clearly states the scope ('any app's', 'including a competitor's'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listing or list_all_listings, which are likely limited to the developer's own apps.

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 clearly implies this tool is for reading public store listings of any app, not just the authenticated developer's own apps. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference required for an agent choosing among siblings.

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