Search App Store Connect API operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the corpus size (1,300+) and, importantly, the return contract (operationIds) plus how they chain into describe/call. It omits pagination/result-cap behavior and deprecation handling, but nothing is contradicted and the added workflow context is genuinely useful.

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 what the tool does, then the return contract, then the sibling preference. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (operationIds) and the next-step tools, which is the key integration detail. Minor gaps remain around result limits and deprecated-operation behavior, which are left entirely to the schema.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning by giving concrete query examples ('customer reviews', 'testflight testers', 'subscription prices', 'xcode cloud builds') that illustrate the keyword style the query parameter expects. It adds nothing for tag/method/includeDeprecated, which the schema already documents.

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 concrete verb+resource with scope ('Search all 1,300+ App Store Connect API operations') and distinguishes itself from curated siblings by positioning itself as the fallback for non-curated operations. It also names the downstream tools (asc_describe_operation, asc_call_operation), so an agent can place it in the workflow without reading any schema.

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 usage rule: 'Prefer a curated asc_* tool when one fits the task,' which is an explicit when-not-to-use signal with a named alternative class. It doesn't spell out when to pick search over asc_list_resource_groups or when a keyword search is preferred over a direct describe, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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