List app infos

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that results are one per territory and that it returns age rating, store state, and category. No contradictions, and the additional detail goes beyond the annotations without over-explaining.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the operation and scope; the second gives an alternative tool. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema details, making it highly efficient.

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 list tool with strong annotations and complete schema parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential semantics: what is listed, the per-territory scoping, and the alternative for single-territory use. It does not mention the limit's effect on pagination or ordering, but these are either in the schema or not critical 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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (appId and limit), including the territory note for appId and the range/default for limit. The description's 'one per territory' phrase reinforces the appId semantics but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the action ('List'), the resource ('app infos'), and the scope ('for an app' and 'one per territory'). It also enumerates key fields returned (age rating, app store state, category), and explicitly distinguishes it from 'get-app-info' for single-territory lookups.

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 explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent to use 'get-app-info' for a single territory, thereby defining when this tool is appropriate (when you need per-territory app infos for an app). This is a clear alternative and contextual distinction.

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