app_store_discovery

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly states read-only and explains that unavailable resources are reported as unavailable rather than empty, which is a key behavioral nuance beyond typical read operations. This is valuable transparency.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes. It efficiently lists surfaces and key behaviors without fluff. The read-only note is placed at the end, which is appropriate as a secondary detail.

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 high schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the behavior on missing resources and confirms read-only. Potential gaps like pagination or error handling are insufficient to call it incomplete for a read-only tool with comprehensive 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline 3 applies. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema already describes, but it does mention 'territory availability' which aligns with the availability enum. No additional depth is provided, but it's sufficient given the schema's completeness.

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?

The description clearly lists the specific surfaces (search keywords, tags, experiments, etc.), indicating the verb 'read' and the resource 'App Store discovery surfaces'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like app_store_listing or app_store_reviews by focusing on non-listing data.

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?

It implies when to use via the surface enumeration, but does not explicitly state when not to use compared to app_store_listing or app_store_reviews. However, the targeted 'beyond the listing text' gives context. Sibling alternatives like app_store_reviews are evident, but no explicit exclusion is made.

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