ASO framework reference

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

No annotations are provided, and the description indicates a read-only retrieval with no side effects. The description is adequate for a simple reference tool but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or data freshness.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's output and includes a source URL. No 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key components of the framework. Minor gaps exist (e.g., exact list of pillars), but overall information is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the content returned, which complements the empty input 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, listing specific content like signal pillars, weights, maturity levels, certification thresholds, and scoring rubric. It includes a source URL. The purpose is distinct from siblings like check_signal or scan_site.

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 when the framework reference is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. Compared to siblings, the use case is clear but lacks direct guidance.

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