aso_niche_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the hard-gate rule, that competitor metrics come from the iTunes Search top 50, that country is PINNED and userRatingCount is per-storefront, that the saturation penalty grows when the median competitor is strong, and that genre AI density is informational and never scored. Gaps remain around read-only/network/cost behavior and error modes.

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 scoring formula is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the hard gate and verdict bands. It is dense but every clause conveys a rule; a few telegraphic fragments ('HARD GATE:', 'country PINNED') cost a little readability but waste no space.

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, and the description supplies the scoring model, gating rule, and verdict cutoffs an agent needs to interpret results. For a 3-param tool it is nearly complete, missing only explicit term semantics and any note on failure conditions.

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. It adds real meaning for genre (any App Store category from aso.GENRES, AI density informational) and country (PINNED, per-storefront rating counts), but the required 'term' parameter is only implied and its format/constraints are never stated.

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+resource: it computes a 0-100 go/no-go score for a keyword/idea niche from demand, competitor weakness, saturation, and monetization. That is far more concrete than the bare name aso_niche_score. It does not, however, name the nearest siblings (idea_evaluate, aso_run) to disambiguate, so an agent must infer the boundary from the formula alone.

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?

Usage is implied through the HARD GATE ('0 autocomplete suggestions = REJECT') and the verdict thresholds (GO>=60, MAYBE>=40, WEAK, REJECT), which tell the agent what output to expect but not when to call this instead of idea_evaluate or aso_run. No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance is given.

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