aso_check_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the name is globally unique and the check is an exact-name collision against iTunes Search. It does not cover read-only vs mutating nature, network/auth requirements, or rate-limit behavior, which is a real gap for an unannotated tool, though the output schema covers return values.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed by the mechanism and the prerequisite call. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter read check with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, and it correctly omits return-value details. It is still thin on parameter meaning and on how the two name-checking siblings relate, which an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. The 'country' parameter in particular is left unexplained, and there is a subtle tension between 'globally unique' and a country-scoped iTunes lookup that the description could have resolved.

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 names a specific verb ('check available') and resource ('App Store name'), and even discloses the mechanism ('iTunes Search exact-name collision'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling aso_find_available_name, which appears to cover similar ground, so it falls 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?

It gives an explicit sequencing instruction ('Call BEFORE asc_create_app'), which tells the agent exactly where this fits in a workflow. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never mentions aso_find_available_name, leaving the choice between the two name-checking siblings to inference.

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