aso_find_available_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the selection rule (first available candidate) and the consequence of a taken name, but does not say what happens if every candidate is taken, whether it checks the live App Store, what credentials or permissions are needed, or whether the check is cached or rate-limited.

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 with no wasted words. The availability constraint and submission consequence are stated efficiently, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps that a longer description could close.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and a live availability-checking purpose, the description is under-specified. It omits the country parameter, does not explain the return semantics beyond what the output schema may show, and says nothing about the no-available-name case.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It gives meaning to candidates as App Store name options, but completely omits the country parameter, which defaults to 'us' and could materially affect availability results.

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 states a specific verb and resource: picking the first available App Store name from candidates. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tool aso_check_name, which likely has an overlapping name-checking role.

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 parenthetical implies usage by explaining why availability matters: a taken name gets submission rejected. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named for cases where none of the candidates are available.

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