get_enterprise_app_store_app_usage_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior: 'Results are paginated by default to prevent token limit issues. Default page size is 50 items. Use page parameter to retrieve additional results.' It also details the return structure (Standard envelope with success/data/meta/error). This provides good transparency beyond basic read-only implied by 'get'.

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 well-structured with a brief opening line, a second line summarizing function, then bullet-like list of parameters, returns, and examples. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and front-loads the purpose. The examples add clarity without excessive verbosity.

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 5 parameters (2 required), pagination, and reference to external output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: date format, pagination mechanism, optional filter, return structure, and examples. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, so description must explain all 5 parameters. It does: start_date/end_date with format and examples, page/size with defaults and ranges, organization_id as optional filter. Examples demonstrate usage. This fully compensates for lack of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'app usage report for enterprise app store' in the first sentence, then elaborates 'Retrieves paginated daily app usage data for the enterprise app store.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build_history_report by specifying the enterprise app store context.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions required parameters (start_date, end_date) and optional organization filter, but lacks guidance on situations where this tool is preferred over others. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are provided.

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