report_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a strong job: it reveals that ASC performance depends on previously imported data, that sections fail independently, and that broken sources are reported as skipped rather than fabricated. This is valuable failure-mode context beyond what the schema could convey. It stops short of covering auth, rate limits, or output shape, but the degradation disclosure is substantive.

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 compact, uses a single evocative phrase front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids repeating schema content. Every clause earns its place: the section list gives a complete sense of scope, and the graceful-degradation sentence provides critical behavioral context without waste.

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 complex tool with five parameters, a nested app object, one enum, and no output schema, the description does enough to convey main intent and failure behavior, but not the full picture. It omits return format details, expects the agent to guess how audience relates to 'culture notes', and does not explain maxReviewPages. The notable degradation guarantee partially compensates for missing structured metadata.

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 60%, with app, storefront, and keywords already explained in the schema. The description adds useful meaning for keywords by linking it to keyword opportunity and ASO section behavior. However, audience and maxReviewPages lack meaningful descriptions in both the schema and the tool description, so the overall parameter comprehension is just adequate.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as producing 'The full App Report in one call' for a single app, enumerating specific report sections. The scope is distinct from the sibling competitor and comparison report tools, and even within the listed sections an agent can infer the report covers. No ambiguity remains about the primary resource and action.

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 implies usage: call this for a full single-app report and include keywords to activate that section. However, it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools such as report_competitor_deep or report_comparison, nor states when to prefer them. It gives two conditions implicitly (one call, full multi-section report) but leaves alternative routing to inference.

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