storekit__get_transaction_history

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint. The description adds real behavioral value: the return format depends on whether ASC_APPLE_ROOT_CERTS is set (signed JWS strings vs verified/decoded), which materially affects how an agent consumes the result. It stops short of disclosing pagination/auth behavior, but that is largely in the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping, then filters, then return format. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing '[App Store Server API]' tag adds little.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (signed vs decoded) and it covers the filter surface and the originating API. For a read-only tool with strong annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only pagination/auth prerequisites are unaddressed.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description restates the filter categories (product type, product ID, date range) without adding syntax or edge-case meaning; notably 'date range' filtering is mentioned but no date parameter appears in the schema, a minor mismatch. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get a customer's full purchase history') and scopes it via transaction ID, which distinguishes it from siblings like storekit__get_transaction_info. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Mentions supported filters, implying how to narrow results, but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance or explicit alternative (e.g., get_transaction_info for a single transaction vs this for history). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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