List All Listings

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'List' and clarifies language scope, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, pagination, or how results are organized. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, and no additional prose is needed for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple, has a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema exists, so basic invocation is covered. However, the lack of annotations and absence of usage guidance relative to siblings leave gaps in selecting and predicting behavior. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema already documents package_name as 'App package name' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics such as format or example values, but it does not need to compensate for a schema gap.

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 clear verb and resource ('List all store listings') and adds an important scope qualifier ('for all languages'). It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_listing, so it stops short of full sibling-level clarity.

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?

No information is given about when to use this tool instead of get_listing, list_locale_coverage, or other listing-related siblings. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions, so the agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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