aso_top_grossing

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 a valuable failure mode (invalid genre returns ok:False, never the overall chart), which goes beyond the schema. But it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or scoping, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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-loaded with the core purpose before the parameter detail, and the long genre enumeration is justified because the schema has no enum. Slightly verbose but every segment earns its place.

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 here. Combined with the genre documentation and the explicit filter-failure rule, the agent has enough to call it correctly; only the undocumented limit/country params keep it from a 5.

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 for all three params. It documents genre thoroughly (category name from aso.GENRES or its id, None = overall chart), but limit and country are left entirely unexplained. It covers one of three parameters well.

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 plus a use framing: 'Top-grossing apps (revenue proxy) — proven-idea hunting.' An agent immediately knows this returns a revenue-ranked chart. It does not name or contrast a sibling (e.g., aso_fetch_competitors, aso_niche_score), so it stops short of 5.

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?

'proven-idea hunting' implies a use context, and the description warns that an ignored genre filter fails rather than silently returning the overall chart. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not / alternative-tool routing against the many ASO siblings, so guidance remains implied.

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