List apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the shape of the result (ids, names, bundle ids, SKUs), but says nothing about pagination behavior or how the default limit of 100 affects a large account.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite note follows. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly compensates by listing the returned fields, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world nature. The one gap is pagination and limit handling, which an agent listing a large account would want to know.

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% – each of the three filter parameters is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no filter semantics, syntax, or matching behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (apps in the App Store Connect account) and even enumerates the fields returned (ids, names, bundle ids, SKUs). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling asc_app_overview, which plausibly overlaps as an app-information tool.

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?

'App ids are needed by most other tools' implies this is a prerequisite discovery call, which is useful implied guidance. It names no explicit alternative and gives no when-not-to-use condition, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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