ASO framework reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, does not fetch or scan, and provides a source URL. This clear behavioral disclosure is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return contents, includes a source URL, and covers all necessary context for a reference tool with no parameters.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 states the tool returns the ASO framework reference with specific components (six signal pillars, maturity levels, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not fetch or scan a website.

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 tells when to use the tool (education, documentation, explaining scores) and what it does not do. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context of sibling tools like scan_site and check_signal provides implicit differentiation.

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