ASO Check Name

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real signal by disclosing the exact-match-only methodology, which tells the agent this will not surface near-collisions or fuzzy matches. It also names the response keys, though those live in the output 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 short, front-loaded lines: purpose first, then a labelled 'Use when:' routing clause, then returns. Zero 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 two-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description supplies purpose, the one sibling fallback, and the matching method — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the 'country' storefront scoping or default 'us', so the 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 ('Check whether ... is free'), the exact resource (App Store app name), and even the mechanism ('exact-name collision in iTunes Search'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling aso_find_available_name, which it names.

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 'Use when:' clause gives a concrete trigger ('testing one name before asc_create_app') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('For several names use aso_find_available_name'). No inference required.

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