List Google Play store listing images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that reads are scoped to an existing edit, implying edit-lifecycle dependency and single-language/single-type filtering, but says nothing about the returned image payload, ordering, or limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. It is arguably too terse for a four-required-parameter tool, but every word present earns its place.

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?

With four required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description should explain what comes back (image references, URLs, metadata) and confirm the edit-lifecycle prerequisite. Neither is addressed, leaving a meaningful gap for a read tool whose only value is its return value.

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 0%, so the description carries real weight, and it does clarify that language and imageType are single-value selectors and that editId must reference an existing edit ('app' loosely implying packageName). It adds no format, pattern, or enum guidance, so an agent still relies entirely on the schema for syntax.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') plus resource ('images') and narrows scope to one language and one image type within an app edit. It is clearly distinguishable from the write-side sibling upload_listing_image and from get_store_listing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'from an existing app edit' implies the prerequisite that an edit must already exist (create_edit / get_edit) and that listing happens inside the edit lifecycle. Beyond that implicit hint there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer get_store_listing, and no mention of edit-state constraints such as committed or discarded edits.

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