ASO Search Hints

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

Adds important behavior beyond the annotations: 0 suggestions for a real term is treated as no demand, and endpoint errors return ok:false rather than an empty list. It also notes the response contains untrusted_content, which is valuable safety context for an open-world read tool.

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, follows with usage guidance, then error/return behavior in three compact sentences. Every sentence carries useful information.

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?

Given the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It adds the interpretive hard-gate rule and error behavior without unnecessarily restating return fields.

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 the schema already documents term, expand, and country. The description repeats that expand=true appends a-z but adds no further parameter syntax or default semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource: query App Store autocomplete for real search demand. The 'idea-stage hard gate' framing makes the function clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling ASO/idea-validation tools such as aso_niche_score or idea_evaluate.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use when validating an idea or expanding keywords, with expand=true for a-z expansion. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of explicit sibling routing.

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