Download an App Store analytics report

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries real added value: it discloses the download pipeline (fetched from Apple's links, checksum-verified, unzipped, merged) and that rows are returned inline. It omits rate-limit/error behavior and how partial failures across multiple dates (maxInstances) are handled.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the processing behavior, then the name-discovery pointer. No redundant restatement of the title or schema fields.

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?

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and only annotations covering the safety profile, the description should clarify the valid parameter combinations (reportId path vs appId+reportName path) and what truncated/inline rows mean. It covers the return shape at a high level ('its rows') but leaves the invocation strategy ambiguous.

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 high (89%), so the schema already documents dates, maxRows, maxInstances, saveTo and granularity. The description adds only that the date range scopes the download and that rows are returned inline; it says nothing about when reportId alone suffices versus the appId+reportName combination, which is the least obvious part of the parameter set.

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 ('Download one analytics report ... for a date range and return its rows') with concrete report-name examples. It distinguishes itself from asc_list_analytics_reports by routing name discovery there, but does not explicitly separate itself from the sibling download tools for sales and finance reports.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite workflow: 'Find report names with asc_list_analytics_reports' before calling this tool. There are no explicit exclusions or negative cases (e.g., when to prefer the sales/finance downloaders), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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