Search Store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It effectively reveals that results are country- and language-dependent and that these parameters change the output rather than act as metadata. For a search operation, this is a valuable behavioral caveat, though it does not explicitly mention read-only status, rate limits, or pagination.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and resource, the second explains a critical non-obvious behavior, and the third gives explicit use cases. Every sentence earns its place and the structure front-loads the most important information.

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 5-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential context: intended use, locale sensitivity, and ranking-focused purpose. It does not mention explicit alternative tools or formally confirm no side effects, but those are either covered by the word 'search' or less critical given the schema and output schema. The definition is sufficiently complete for correct 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by explaining that country and language affect ranking results, which is not at all obvious from the schema's simple type/description fields. It does not add extra meaning for term, num, or price, but their schema descriptions are already clear enough.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching the public Play Store from a country-specific user's perspective. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_error_issues or get_search_terms by specifying the resource (public Play Store) and the lens (as a user in a given country would see it). The use case for competitor research and rank checking adds further specificity.

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 provides concrete when-to-use guidance: competitor research and checking where an app ranks for a term. It also implies that country and language arguments are not optional decoration and should be set meaningfully. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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