Get store top charts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields (rank, delta vs. yesterday, is_new), states the snapshot date is included, and documents defaults for category and collection. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, so it stops short of a 5.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return payload, then parameter semantics — a sensible order. The parameter sentences are somewhat verbose for a tool whose schema already documents those fields, costing it a point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the ranked-app fields and the snapshot date. Combined with 100%-documented parameters and full annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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% and both enums are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's category and collection text (including the same '6014'/GAME examples) rather than adding new format or interaction detail, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get a store top-chart ranking') and immediately bounds it by store, country, category and collection. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as list_top_chart_categories (which enumerates categories) and get_keyword_rank_history (which is keyword-scoped).

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?

Usage context is implied through the parameter explanation (category/collection choices) but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_top_chart_categories, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the use case, but the guidance is not stated.

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