List store listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral value is disclosing the returned fields (title, descriptions) and the every-language scope; it says nothing about pagination, volume of results, or error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The resource and the every-language scope are both stated immediately, and every word 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete; it names the returned content (title, descriptions). Slight gap: no mention of whether results are paginated or how many languages could come back.

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?

There is one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE default, so the schema carries the full semantic load. The description adds nothing about the package_name parameter, which is acceptable given the coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('store listing') plus a scope qualifier ('for every language'), which distinguishes it functionally from the singular get_listing sibling. However, it never names get_listing or update_listing explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The phrase 'for every language' implies the usage context (broad enumeration vs a targeted lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the get_listing alternative for a single language. Usage must be inferred from scope wording.

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