aso_competitor_iap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the failure contract (ok:False + prices:None), warns that absence means 'unknown' NOT 'free', and explains why iTunes lookup can't substitute. It stops short of documenting auth or rate-limit behavior, but the fragility disclosure is the critical trait for correct interpretation.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the sourcing rationale, then the critical fragility warning. Tight and purposeful, though the fragmented parenthetical asides make it slightly choppy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description adds the one thing an agent most needs — the failure/absence semantics — plus the app_id source. Only the country parameter and any auth expectations are left uncovered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains app_id precisely ('iTunes trackId returned by aso_fetch_competitors'), but the country parameter (default 'us') is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource: retrieves a competitor's subscription/IAP price ladder from the App Store product page. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aso_fetch_competitors (which supplies the app_id) and aso_unit_economics (which consumes pricing data).

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?

Gives implied usage ('Input to the pricing decision') and a useful chaining hint that app_id comes from aso_fetch_competitors. However, it never states explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions or names an alternative tool for the same task.

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