aso_fetch_competitors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the call is live (network-dependent, potentially slow or rate-limited) and read-only (safe, no mutation). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and result ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical efficiently conveys the live/read-only traits. It is terse to the point of under-specification, which caps it below a 5.

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 need not be explained, but for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations the description is far too thin — it provides no parameter meaning, no usage routing, and no operational caveats.

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 mentions no parameters at all. Three parameters (term, limit, country) are left entirely undocumented, so an agent gets no guidance on what 'term' should contain or what 'country' accepts.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('competitor apps'), and the data source ('iTunes Search'). It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like aso_competitor_iap or aso_search_hints, which an agent would have to disambiguate on its own.

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 '(LIVE, read-only)' tag hints that this hits live external data rather than a cache, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the other ASO siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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