play-store-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.5.1
- Disambiguation4/5
Each tool generally pairs a clear action with a different resource type—reviews, purchases, subscriptions, offers, listings, users, tracks—so the set is mostly disambiguated. A few tools have closely related semantics (e.g., refund_order vs revoke_subscription_purchase vs refund_external_transaction), but the descriptions give enough detail to avoid serious confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5The naming follows a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, using standard prefixes like get_, list_, create_, update_, delete_, batch_, upload_, and patch_. Resource-specific verb exceptions (e.g., refund_order, promote_release, halt_release) still fit the same predictable style.
Tool Count1/5With 117 tools, this is an extreme mismatch for an agent-facing MCP server. The Play Store API has broad surface legacy, but exposing every batch operation and lifecycle extension makes it unwieldy, bloats context, and reduces practical usability.
Completeness4/5The set covers many major Play Store domains, including app packages, releases, listings, reviews, ordres, subscriptions, in-app products, purchase options, external transactions, and developer/grant access. Some write tools are disabled in read-only mode or a few resource clutches lack update/delete, but these are partial constraints, not severe dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 117 of 117 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 70 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'get', implying a read operation, but it does not explain what the response contains, whether it is safe, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a data retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is concise, but it is a single sentence with no additional structure. It is minimal but not wasteful; however, it lacks any supplemental detail that could be provided without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is an output schema present, which likely defines the return structure, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the tool's moderate complexity (two required parameters) and the lack of annotations or usage guidance, the description is complete only for the most basic understanding. It is adequate but lacks enrichment for an agent distinguishing it from many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (package_name, external_transaction_id) described individually at the schema level. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a single phrase 'Get an external (alternative billing) transaction.' It states the verb (get) and resource (external transaction), but it lacks specificity about what information is returned or the context of use. It is somewhat distinguished from sibling tools like refund_external_transaction, but the description could be more precise about the transaction's data or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention whether it complements create_external_transaction or how it differs from get_order or list_subscriptions. The description gives no context for appropriate invocation, such as prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the concept of batching without mentioning any side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or constraints. The description adds nothing beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains no extraneous words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not indicate what 'details' are returned or if there are limits on the number of SKUs. For a batch operation, missing information about batching constraints or error handling leaves the description incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with parameter descriptions ('List of product SKUs to retrieve' and 'App package name'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') for a specific resource ('multiple in-app products') and indicates batching ('at once'). It distinguishes from single-product retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar batch operations like batch_get_one_time_products.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_in_app_product for a single product or list_in_app_products for all products. There are no exclusions, limits, or context clues about typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but 'Get a device tier config' only implies a read operation. It does not state read-only semantics, required permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the config is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally concise. However, it mostly restates the tool title and adds no discriminative value, making it under-specified rather than genuinely informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to explain what a device tier config is, when to fetch one, or how this tool fits with related config tools. This is inadequate for a two-parameter tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for 'package_name' and 'device_tier_config_id,' so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter context such as how the config ID relates to the package or expected formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'device tier config,' making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_device_tier_configs beyond the singular/plural implication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_device_tier_configs or create_device_tier_config. The description simply restates the operation, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List all one-time products' and does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, error behavior, or whether the list is exhaustive. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence) with no wasted words, but it borders on under-specification. It essentially restates the tool name and adds little value, so while it is concise, it is not effectively informative enough to rate higher.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is still too vague. It doesn't describe the output format, pagination, or any typical usage patterns. The description fails to provide a complete picture for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for package_name is minimal ('App package name'), but schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, such as format or constraints, beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (one-time products), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and list_in_app_products by naming 'one-time products'. However, it doesn't specify the scope (e.g., per app) beyond the parameter, and it could be more specific about the intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many related tools (e.g., get_one_time_product, patch_one_time_product, list_subscriptions) but the description does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternatives. It simply states the action without any use-case direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details' with no mention of read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or batch size constraints. The lack of any behavioral context is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description does not mention potential error conditions, batch size limits, or prerequisites. For a batch fetch operation that might have constraints (e.g., max IDs per request), it is minimally adequate but lacks important operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and the target resource ('multiple one-time products'), distinguishing it from single-product fetch (get_one_time_product) and listing all (list_one_time_products) by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'at once'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for a specific set of product IDs versus listing all, or how it compares to batch_get_in_app_products. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it doesn't explain behavioral impact—whether this issues a refund, what the user experiences, whether it's reversible, or what happens to entitlements. The description is merely the title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence—minimal, no fluff, but borders on being too sparse. Effective in its brevity, though it doesn't add value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With over 130 sibling tools, a clear cancellation operation with potential side effects (billing, entitlements) needs more context. The output schema exists so return values are covered, but the description fails to explain use cases, side effects, or edge cases, making it inadequate for a billing-related mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the descriptions are decent (they clarify package name, purchase token source, and enum values with defaults). However, the description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Cancel a subscription purchase" uses a specific verb (cancel) and resource (subscription purchase), but it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like cancel_subscription, delete_subscription, or revoke_subscription_purchase. It's clear but undifferentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. No mention of side effects (e.g., whether the user gets a refund, whether they lose access, how this differs from refund or revoke operations).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral detail is the read-only mode restriction. Nothing is said about idempotency, side effects, size limits, or conflict behavior—significant for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, punchy sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The read-only mode note is useful but could be integrated more effectively. Slightly more useful context could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and parameters are well-documented, the description remains thin for a mutation tool. It does not convey when this config is needed (e.g., relative to device tier lists), prerequisites, or expected setup flow. More behavioral context would help the agent decide when this tool is the right choice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema provides meaningful detail for all parameters (e.g., allow_unknown_devices default and purpose). The description itself adds no parameter-level information, but per the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear specific verb+resource ('Create a new device tier config'). It's concise and directly matches the tool name, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_grant or other create_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only notes 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a limitation but not guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided, unlike the calibration example that names an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Disabled in read-only mode' hints at write semantics but doesn't disclose implications: does creating a subscription require specific auth scopes? Does it trigger reviews? What's the expected state post-creation? A sibling tool `create_grant` might have similar patterns, making this more important.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The read-only mode note is useful. Could be more structured with sections for different types of info (what/why/when) but acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema present and 100% param coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the existence of 100+ sibling tools with high overlap (create_subscription_offer, create_in_app_product) creates a need for differentiation. The description is a bare minimum spec. There's an output schema which helps completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. The 'subscription' parameter's nested structure (basePlans, listings) is mentioned but the description could clarify what makes a valid subscription object. No added value for `regions_version` which seems important for regional pricing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource: 'Create a new subscription product in the catalog.' Distinguishes from create_subscription_offer and create_in_app_product. Could be more explicit about the distinction from similar create_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives provided. With 100+ sibling tools including many subscription-related ones (create_subscription_offer, create_in_app_product, activate_base_plan), the description should clarify when this specific tool is appropriate. The 'new subscription product in the catalog' phrase implies catalog-level creation but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that the next renewal is deferred. It does not explain side effects, reversal, permissions, or what 'defer' means operationally (e.g., does it change billing date? Is it idempotent?), leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is highly concise, but the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification, so it does not quite achieve the 'two sentences, zero waste' standard of a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the operation is a mutation (deferring a purchase) and there are no annotations, the description should provide additional context like reversibility, impact on existing benefits, or required permissions. None is present, and while an output schema exists, it doesn't compensate for missing behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so per rubric the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema includes helpful details like the example '604800s' for defer_duration, which is sufficient; no deduction needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'defer' with a clear resource ('a subscription purchase's next renewal'), making it evident what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'cancel_subscription_purchase' or 'revoke_subscription_purchase', so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel or revoke. The description implies usage only through the verb 'defer' but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent without enough context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose consequences (e.g., irreversible, affects existing subscribers, requires specific permissions). The 'Disabled in read-only mode' is a useful behavioral note but insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no fluff. The 'Disabled in read-only mode' is a useful addition. However, it could be slightly more structured with a note about irreversibility, but it's concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema details, the description is thin. It doesn't mention what happens on success (e.g., returns void or confirmation), whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. Given the complexity of subscription management, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (product_id and package_name). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a subscription product from the catalog') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_in_app_product or delete_base_plan by specifying 'subscription product', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., subscription must exist, cannot delete if active) or when not to use it. The only context is 'Disabled in read-only mode', which is a constraint but not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'deploy' without indicating whether it replaces existing releases, requires a prior upload, handles rollout increments, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 params, output schema, many siblings), the description is too brief. It omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must be already uploaded), distinguishes from deploy_app_multilang, and explains rollout behavior. This limits its usefulness for an agent deciding to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, but since the schema is thorough, this is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Deploy an APK or AAB file to a Play Store track', specifying the verb (deploy), resource (APK/AAB), and target (track). It is distinct from upload tools but does not explicitly differentiate from deploy_app_multilang or promote_release, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_app_multilang, promote_release, or upload_apk/upload_bundle. With many sibling tools, the description offers no usage criteria or exclusions, making tool selection ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get details' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or whether the product might be in draft/archived state. No information about errors or authentication is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action. It is concise but could slightly expand on context; however, for a simple get operation, the brevity is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a simple parameter set and an output schema, the description is sufficient for basic usage. However, it lacks information about when this tool is preferred over sibling tools or any behavioral details, making it minimally complete. The output schema likely explains return values, so no need for that in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'sku' and 'package_name' are described with one-line meanings). The description adds no further semantics but doesn't need to because the schema is fully descriptive. Baseline of 3 applies as there is no additional value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details of a specific in-app product' clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'in-app product', making it easy to understand. It is distinct from siblings like 'list_in_app_products' or 'batch_get_in_app_products' due to 'specific', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is for a single product lookup as opposed to batch operations, nor does it clarify when to use list vs get. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Migrate subscribers to the current base plan prices' and 'Disabled in read-only mode' imply a write operation, but they do not explain side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or impact on existing subscriptions. Too much behavioral information is left unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant content. Each sentence serves a purpose: the first states the operation, the second adds an important operational limitation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and 100% schema parameter coverage, the tool is a mutating migration operation with a nested request and a batch sibling. The description does not explain use vs. batch_migrate_base_plan_prices, or what the migration changes in practice. Its low level of guidance and no mention of side effects leave the context incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. The example for 'request' in the schema—regionalPriceMigrations, regionsVersion—is not repeated in the description, but that is acceptable because the schema already covers it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Migrate subscribers to the current base plan prices.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling batch_migrate_base_plan_prices, so it misses the full score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives like batch_migrate_base_plan_prices or activate_base_plan. The phrase 'Disabled in read-only mode' is a constraint, not a usage recommendation. The description gives no context for use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the tool replies to a review with no mention of side effects, persistence, permissions, whether the reply is immediately visible, or if it can be edited/deleted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriate for the mechanical simplicity of the tool, though it misses any supporting context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is conceptually simple, but the description remains too minimal for an agent to safely call it. It lacks information about what happens after the reply, whether there are limits, or what response to expect. Even with an output schema, the missing behavioral context is quite binding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes all three parameters with clear details, especially review_id referencing get_reviews. The description does not add any extra semantic value, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Reply') and resource ('a user review'), so the agent can infer the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_review or get_reviews, but the action is specific enough to avoid confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, whether to use it after get_reviews, or any restrictions or workflows. The only usage hint is indirectly in the parameter schema, not in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions 'refund' which implies a financial mutation, but omits details like reversibility, required permissions, or side effects on subscription status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with zero filler. It immediately communicates the core purpose, making it highly scannable and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite good schema coverage and an output schema, the description lacks usage context, alternative tool references, and behavioral disclaimers. For a financial mutation, this minimal description is insufficient for safe agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, and refund_type has an inline enum-like explanation. The description adds no extra parameter context, so baseline 3 applies given >80% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (revoke/refund) and the resource (subscription purchase), which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cancel_subscription_purchase or refund_order, though the parenthetical '(refund)' hints at the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, excluded scenarios, or contrast with similar tools like cancel_subscription_purchase or refund_external_transaction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only restates the function name. It fails to disclose whether testers are replaced or appended, auth requirements, or idempotency, which is a significant gap given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with an output schema signaled but no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify if the update replaces the entire list, if track validation is performed, or what the response contains, leaving critical gaps for an agent to choose confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but this is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('testers') with a scope qualifier ('for a specific testing track'). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like get_testers or clarify what 'testers' means in this context, though the schema fills in the google_groups detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no preconditions mentioned, and no exclusions stated. This is a knowledge gap since there are many similar update_* tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a behavioral trait, but it doesn't disclose other important behaviors: whether the operation is atomic, what happens on partial failure, whether it's reversible, or any side effects. For a batch mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a critical usage note. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (batch operation, nested request bodies, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or the structure of the 'requests' array. The output schema exists but is not described in the description, and the description doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral details. For a batch mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The 'requests' parameter is described as 'List of MigrateBasePlanPricesRequest bodies' in the schema, and the description doesn't elaborate on the structure or constraints of these bodies. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Migrate prices for multiple base plans in a single operation.' It uses a specific verb ('migrate') and resource ('base plan prices'), and the 'multiple' and 'single operation' phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling 'migrate_base_plan_prices' (singular). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other batch operations like 'batch_update_base_plan_states', but the core purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for migrating prices in bulk, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use the singular 'migrate_base_plan_prices' or other batch update tools). It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or context like required permissions or typical scenarios. The 'Disabled in read-only mode' hint is a usage constraint but not a full guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'create' which implies a write operation, but does not specify what happens on success, what errors might occur, whether it is idempotent, or any side effects (e.g., whether it triggers a charge). Since annotations are absent, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short, but it could be slightly more informative about the resource structure (e.g., mentioning the required ExternalTransaction resource body) without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested object parameter (transaction) that is only described as 'ExternalTransaction resource body' with additionalProperties allowed, which is vague. The description does not elaborate on what the transaction resource should contain, nor does it explain the purpose of the external_transaction_id. Given the complexity (create operation with a nested body), the description is incomplete; it would benefit from more guidance on the resource structure and preconditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'App package name', 'External transaction ID to assign'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does reiterate that the transaction is an external billing transaction, which is minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create) and resource (external transaction), and adds the qualifier 'alternative billing' which helps differentiate it from other transaction-related tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like refund_external_transaction or get_external_transaction, though the verb itself does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is used when you need to create an external transaction, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific package name or a valid external_transaction_id). No competing tool is named, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. Only the word 'recent' adds a non-obvious detail; the description does not reveal ordering, pagination, how 'recent' is determined, or whether translation is applied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It communicates the core task efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and has a complete input schema and output schema, so the one-liner provides a minimally viable summary. However, it still lacks usage context, behavioral details, and an alternative-tool comparison, so it is not fully complete for an agent selecting between siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents package_name, max_results, and translation_language clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'recent,' which is the non-param baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (recent reviews for an app), which is distinct from the sibling 'get_review' tool by using plural reviews. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives or define what 'recent' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_review, reply_to_review, or other review-related sibling tools. There is no mention of suitable contexts, limitations, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or what happens if the subscription does not exist. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, achieving maximal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with a robust output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the core purpose but lacks any additional context such as typical use cases, edge cases, or interactions with other tools. While the output schema covers return details, the description doesn't mention read-only nature or any special considerations, making it barely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters, such as how they relate to each other or any format expectations. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (details of a specific subscription product). It is concise and understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_subscription_status, but the phrase 'details of a specific subscription product' implies a full retrieval rather than just status, so it is mostly clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to list_subscriptions or get_subscription_status. The description simply states what it does, leaving usage context entirely unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get the status of a subscription purchase,' which implies read-only behavior but does not disclose what statuses may be returned, whether it validates ownership, or any operational details beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to stating the core operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and many subscription-related siblings, a note about which subscription-related tools it is preferable to over (or used in combination with) would improve contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (package_name, purchase_token, and subscription_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to because the schema already documents them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the status of a subscription purchase.' The phrase 'subscription purchase' hints at the object being a purchase record rather than a subscription product, which partially distinguishes it from siblings like get_subscription, though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_subscription, list_subscriptions, get_order, or get_product_purchase. The description simply states the action with no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or recommended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'Get' — implying a read operation — but gives no details about not-found behavior, permissions, output content, or relationship to downloaded files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded, with a single sentence that quickly conveys the core action and resource. There is no fluff or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three recognized input parameters and an output schema, the bare description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage or behavioral context that would be useful for an AI agent deciding between get_system_apk_variant and related tools like download_system_apk_variant or list_system_apk_variants.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: variant_id, package_name, and version_code are all clearly described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Get') applied to a specific resource ('previously created system APK variant'), making the basic purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from create/list tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from download_system_apk_variant, which could be confusing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as download_system_apk_variant or list_system_apk_variants. It also doesn't mention any preconditions like the variant needing to exist or the relationship to create_system_apk_variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List all in-app products' without mentioning read-only nature, potential side effects, permission requirements, pagination, or response format. The output schema exists but does not cover behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about scope (e.g., whether subscriptions are included) and does not clarify any edge cases or distinctions from similar sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'package_name' is described as 'App package name'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (in-app products) scoped to an app. It is distinct enough from get_in_app_product (singular) but does not explicitly differentiate from batch_get_in_app_products or list_one_time_products, though the plural 'all' suggests a general collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_get_in_app_products or list_one_time_products. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a mutating operation, potential side effects (e.g., affecting users in the target track), or any prerequisites (e.g., release must exist in source track). The description is minimal and lacks transparency about the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the promotion process, any constraints (e.g., track hierarchy), or what the output represents. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description lacks operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given high coverage. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'rollout_percentage' is optional and defaults to 100), but the schema already provides that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Promote a release') and the resource ('from one track to another'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'halt_release' or 'update_rollout'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the package or version context, but the schema covers that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (promoting releases between tracks) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_rollout' or 'deploy_app'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('Get details') and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, error handling, or what happens if some requests fail. It also doesn't mention that the 'requests' array contains individual offer requests, which is a key behavioral aspect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient and contains no fluff. However, it could have added a bit more context about the required parent parameters without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (batch operation with nested request objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It doesn't explain the structure of the 'requests' array or any constraints (e.g., maximum batch size). The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description could be more complete about the input requirements and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'Parent subscription product ID', 'Parent base plan ID (with '-' wildcard allowed)'). The description itself adds minimal value beyond the schema, but the schema is well-documented. The 'requests' parameter is described as 'List of GetSubscriptionOfferRequest bodies', which is somewhat vague but acceptable given the schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details for multiple subscription offers in a single operation.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('subscription offers'), and the 'batch' and 'single operation' phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_subscription_offer' and 'list_subscription_offers'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the required parent identifiers (package_name, product_id, base_plan_id) which are part of the purpose context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving multiple offers at once, which is clear from the name and description. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_subscription_offer' (single) or 'list_subscription_offers' (list all). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, but the context of batching is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details for multiple subscription products at once' adds minimal behavioral context—no batch size limits, no partial failure semantics, no confirmation of read-only behavior or response shape. The phrase 'details' hints at verbose output, but for a batch API that likely has request limits, this is thin coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Nine words, action verb first, zero fluff. The single sentence is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward batch read operation. Loses a point only because it's minimal to the point of being slightly generic—it reads more like a UI tooltip than a rich API contract.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter batch read operation that has an output schema documented, the core contract is covered. However, batch operations typically carry limits (e.g., max IDs per request, error behavior when some IDs are invalid) that would be material for an agent to know before invoking. The description is adequate but leaves important operational details on the table.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both package_name and product_ids already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, but since the schema handles all parameter documentation, the baseline of 3 applies without penalty.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'subscription products' and conveys batch semantics with 'multiple... at once,' which distinguishes it from singular get_subscription. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from closely named siblings like batch_get_subscription_offers or batch_get_in_app_products, though 'subscription products' narrows the scope well.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied—use this when you need details for multiple subscription products. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives as seen in the calibration's 'Tier A' example. The 'at once' phrasing implies batching for efficiency, but with dozens of competing batch/get tools in the sibling list, explicit differentiation would elevate this score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only discloses that the tool is disabled in read-only mode. It does not disclose side effects (creating a draft), whether this overwrites existing drafts, permissions required, or anything about the draft lifecycle. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence declares the action, the second adds a relevant constraint. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema field names.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description leaves out important contextual information about the draft recovery lifecycle: it does not explain what 'recovery' payload sto do, how the draft relates to deploy/cancel tools, or whether multiple drafts are supported. Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin to enable an agent to use a mutation eature confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both `package_name` and `recovery` have descriptive comments. The tool description itself adds no additional semantic detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a draft app recovery action' - a specific verb with a resource and stage. The word 'draft' distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_app_recovery, cancel_app_recovery, and list_app_recoveries, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Disabled in read-only mode' is an environmental restriction, not usage direction. The agent is left to infer from sibling names that a draft should be created before deploying or adding targeting, but no explicit workflow is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral details. It mentions that the tool is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a useful constraint. However, it does not describe side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens upon success or failure. The description is minimal and lacks the depth needed for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is just two short sentences, both front-loaded and free of fluff. It states the core purpose first and then adds a note about read-only mode. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and only two parameters, the tool has a nested object parameter ('user') and no annotations to fill in behavioral details. The description is sparse and does not explain the intended workflow, any prerequisites (e.g., developer account existence), or potential edge cases. Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested object), the description is insufficient without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters ('user' and 'developer_id') with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning or context for the parameters, so it relies entirely on the schema. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Grant a user access to a developer account.' This uses a specific verb ('grant') and a specific resource ('user access to a developer account'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_grant (which likely manages grants) and update_user/delete_user. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_grant, update_user). It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The only additional note is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is more of a behavioral constraint than a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies removal/revocation of access but does not state whether it is reversible, whether it deletes related resources (grants, subscriptions), or the effect on existing sessions. It also omits response/return behavior, leaving uncertainty about success/error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and immediate: two sentences. It front-loads the core action ('Remove a user's access') and adds a concise scope and limitation note. No unnecessary detail or repetition of schema content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple: 2 primitive string parameters with complete schema coverage, no output schema (though simple, a return value could have been described), and no sibling comparison provided in the description. However, the description does not need to explain return values because there is no output schema; for this simple tool, the provided context covers the essential action and limitation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the two parameters, and each has a basic description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: 'email' identifies the user, 'developer_id' is the account. No usage format, validation constraints, or relationship to required ID is explained. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema is complete and descriptions are present but shallow.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses the specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource ('a user's access to a developer account'), and the title 'Delete User' reinforces the action. It clearly states the supported operation and provides a scope qualifier. However, it does not strongly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_grant or list_users, though the access-scope helps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates a destructive action and includes a note: 'Disabled in read-only mode.' This implicitly warns that the tool may be restricted based on system state. It does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions, ownership checks), nor reference sibling tools like delete_grant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not mention authentication/authorization requirements, and gives no indication of side effects (or lack thereof). The absence of any such disclosure is a significant omission for a tool that might be expected to be non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the key information. However, it partially duplicates the title, making it slightly less information-dense than it could be. It does not waste words, but could be enriched with sibling differentiation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a simple retrieval, the description might suffice for basic use. Yet, in a context with over 150 sibling tools, the lack of guidance on which specific app details (beyond the three listed) or how this differs from get_listing leaves a completeness gap. The absence of any behavioral caveats (e.g., rate limits) also lowers the score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description only reiterates the tool's general scope without contributing to param understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get app details') and lists concrete fields (title, description, developer info), making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like get_listing, and the phrase mirrors the tool name/title so it relies on the name for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the description ('Get app details'), and the package_name parameter is required, suggesting it is used to fetch a single app's info. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or limitations, which is a moderate gap given the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists configs but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, what happens if no configs exist, or any pagination/ordering behavior. The output schema exists but the description adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't clarify the scope of 'all' (e.g., across all tiers) or any filtering, and with no annotations, it could be more complete about the return structure or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (package_name), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'for an app', which is redundant with the parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists device tier configs for an app, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_device_tier_config (singular) and create_device_tier_config, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving all device tier configs for a given app, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. get_device_tier_config or create_device_tier_config. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects), mention pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits that could affect invocation or interpretation of results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and appropriate for a simple list operation, though it could be slightly expanded to include usage context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is minimally complete. It states what it does but lacks additional context such as whether results are paginated, what the output represents (e.g., image URLs), or when to use it relative to other image tools. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (language, image_type, package_name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it lists images for a language and image type, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (store-listing images), and the scope (for a language and image type). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like upload_image, delete_image, and list_all_listings, which handle different operations or resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as upload_image or delete_image. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the refund action, but does not mention whether the refund is irreversible, how partial refunds work, any authorization requirements, or side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity about the operation's consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and instantly comprehensible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the schema is thorough, the description overall is minimal for a potentially destructive financial operation. It lacks behavioral context, usage conditions, and differentiation from refund_order, making it incomplete given the tool's complexity and impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (package_name, external_transaction_id, refund), including the structure of the refund object. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it relies on the schema's already solid coverage. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Refund') and specific resource ('external (alternative billing) transaction'), which differentiates it from the sibling refund_order. It is immediately clear what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like refund_order, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. There is no explicit 'use when...' or 'don't use...' language, leaving the agent to infer based on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update,' which indicates mutation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing fields, if validation occurs, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. It is as brief as possible while conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex with six parameters, but the description is extremely minimal. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description fails to provide behavioral context, usage scenarios, or any hints about side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is incomplete for a mutation tool and leaves the agent to infer too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The only reference to parameters is 'specific language,' which matches the 'language' field but adds no extra meaning. The schema already provides sufficient detail, so the description adds no value here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (store listing) and scopes it to a specific language. It distinguishes from read operations like get_listing and list_all_listings, though it doesn't explicitly mention those alternatives. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when updating a listing for a particular language but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There are no alternative tools mentioned, and no exclusions or prerequisites are noted. The language scoping hints at the need for a language parameter, but no deeper context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'validate' implies no side effects, the description does not disclose what happens on success or failure (return value, exceptions), rate limits, or authorization needs. It is a minimal statement that leaves much to be inferred.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it highly scannable and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and only a minimal description, key context is missing: return format, error handling, and whether any state changes occur. While a validation tool likely doesn't modify data, the description relies heavily on the user's inference. The existence of an output schema mitigates some but not all gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a clear description including its max length. The tool description's 'lengths' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline. The description neither enriches nor detracts from schema understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Validate' and the resource 'store listing text', with a specific focus on 'lengths before updating'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_listing by implying a pre-update check, though it could be more explicit about the validation being non-mutating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before updating' gives clear temporal context, implying it should be used prior to update_listing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The usage guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose what happens on invalid input (e.g., error vs. boolean return), whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description doesn't hint at the return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. It earns its place without unnecessary detail, though it could add a bit more behavioral context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the validation rules (e.g., regex pattern) or the return value, which the output schema might cover but the description doesn't reference. For a validation tool, more detail on what constitutes a valid package name would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds the example 'com.example.myapp' which clarifies the expected format, but this is minimal added value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates a package name format, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_track and validate_listing_text by focusing on package names, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage before other operations but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides a clear context (pre-validation) but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether validation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. The tool likely just checks validity but this isn't disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, to the point. No redundancy. Could be slightly more informative, but it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple task with output schema present, so minimal description can suffice. However, it lacks details on what validation entails, possible return values, or error handling, making it only minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already documents the 'track' parameter with examples. The description adds the context of being used before deployment operations, but doesn't add validation criteria or format details beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool validates a track name for deployment operationseto it's specific enough. It distinguishes from siblings like validate_package_name or validate_listing_text by focusing on track validation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on when to use ('before using it in deployment operations') but doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get details.' It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention required permissions, wildcard behavior on parent IDs, batch limits, or partial failure behavior. The schema notes wildcards, but the description adds little beyond purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler. It states the resource and batch nature upfront, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers all parameters and descriptions, and an output schema exists, but the description is terse. It lacks context about batching semantics, what 'GetOneTimeProductOfferRequest' contains, and how the wildcard parent IDs interact with the request list. Additional context would help an agent correctly construct a call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter has a description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary baseline, including wildcard constraints. Therefore a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation: 'Get details for multiple one-time product offers at once.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the batch aspect is explicit. Though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the wording is distinct enough to convey what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'at once'—use this when multiple offers need to be fetched—but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_purchase_option_offers or single-fetch alternatives. No when-not-to-use criteria are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It mentions 'Disabled in read-only mode' which is useful, but does not disclose other effects such as whether partial failures occur, whether the operation is atomic, or the response format. Lacks depth for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence plus one line noting read-only limitation. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, return values may be implicit, but the description doesn't mention error handling or batch size limits. It covers the basic operation but leaves out behavioral nuances that could help an agent decide or handle failures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add details about parameters beyond what schema offers. For 'requests', the schema includes a note about UpdateOneTimeProductRequest fields, but the description doesn't elaborate on how to construct these or provide examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('multiple one-time products'), and implies batch operation. It distinguishes from siblings like patch_one_time_product (single) and batch_get_one_time_products (read), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says it performs a bulk update, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this over batch_update_subscriptions or individual patch tools. It doesn't state prerequisites like existing products or required permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description needs to compensate for behavioral disclosure. It adds a small caveat about read-only mode and describes a single operation, but it omits permission requirements, reversibility, what happens on partial cursor, and other side effects of batch mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, front-loaded with the core operation, and includes a useful say caution about read-only mode. Every sentence serves a purpose, making the structures revenue and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema and output schema provide some richness, but the batch nature of the operation warrants more context, such as how failures are handled or whether the batch is atomic. For a mutation of this complexity, the description is only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions, including the batch request structure and the wildcard allowed for base_plan_id. The tool description contributes no additional parameter details, so the schema carries the meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool updates multiple subscription offers in a single operation, identifying the verb, resource, and batch scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like batch_update_subscription_offer_states or patch_subscription_offer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The only qualifier about being 'disabled in read-only mode' is a restriction rather than a usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is disabled in read-only mode, which is useful and hints at mutability. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether it overwrites existing fields or if there are limits on the number of requests per call. Given the lack of annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and to the point, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides a critical behavioral note about read-only mode. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (batch operation with array of request bodies) and the absence of annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain what happens if some requests fail, whether partial updates are applied, or any error semantics. The output schema exists, but it likely covers return values, so that is not a major gap. However, for a batch mutation tool, more behavioral and usage guidance would be expected, but it is not severely lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% for the two parameters, providing adequate descriptions for requests and package_name. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Since the schema already explains the parameters well, baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional nuance is provided about the structure of requests or required fields, but the schema handles that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: updating multiple subscription products in a single operation. It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (subscription products), and the batch aspect distinguishes it from single-update siblings like patch_subscription. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to batch_update_subscription_offers or other batch tools, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify the difference between updating subscriptions via this batch tool versus using patch_subscription for single updates, or whether this is preferable for multiple items. The only contextual clue is the batch nature, which is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'disabled in read-only mode' constraint, which implies a write operation. However, it does not describe potential effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens to the offer after creation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of one sentence for the purpose and one for the operational constraint. No fluff, no redundant detail, well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with a nested offer object and six parameters, the description is minimal but not misleading. The output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so the description does not have to explain the return format. However, it lacks any context about the resource's relationships, prerequisites, or typical usage scenarios that would make it complete enough for an agent to fully reason about when and why to call it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it achieves only the baseline score of 3 per the rubric when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it creates a subscription offer, a specific verb+resource (create + subscription offer). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_subscription_offer, patch_subscription_offer, and delete_subscription_offer, which all operate on the same resource but in different ways.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides only the note 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a constraint on usage but not a direct guideline on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any comparison to siblings like create_subscription or get_subscription_offer, and does not specify when this should be selected over related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that deactivation affects only new subscribers and that the tool is disabled in read-only mode. However, it omits impact on existing subscriptions, reversibility (via activate_subscription_offer), or required permissions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and a brief note on read-only behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deactivation action, the core purpose and effect are present. However, with no annotations and an output schema present, the description could mention error states (e.g., already deactivated), idempotency, or a pointer to activate_subscription_offer for reversal. It's adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters have schema-level descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deactivate a subscription offer') and the specific effect ('making it unavailable to new subscribers'). This distinguishes it from related tools like activate_subscription_offer and patch_subscription_offer, even though those siblings aren't explicitly named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus activate_subscription_offer or patch_subscription_offer. The only additional note, 'Disabled in read-only mode,' is a behavioral constraint rather than usage direction. There's no when-to-use or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Download a single generated APK to a local file.' It does not mention that the file will be written to destination_path, that it may overwrite existing files, or that it requires a prior download_id. No side effects, error conditions, or mutation characteristics are disclosed. This is a significant gap for a tool that writes to the local filesystem.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It contains zero filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and structurally sound.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the output schema is provided, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, the description omits critical behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., the APK must have been generated previously) and the fact that it writes to a local file, which could have side effects. Given the simplicity and available schema/output schema, it is minimally complete but lacking in usage and behavioral depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not compensate with additional context. It simply restates the purpose without delving into parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Download a single generated APK to a local file.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the term 'generated' distinguishes it from other APK download tools like download_system_apk_variant. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, the description does not indicate that this is for APKs from list_generated_apks or that download_system_apk_variant is for system variants. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implied read-only nature of 'Get'. It does not mention potential errors (e.g., missing listing), authentication requirements, side effects, or any operational nuances. The description adds minimal value beyond what 'get' implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Get store listing'. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't clarify that it returns a single listing for the specified language or any error conditions, but the straightforward read nature and schema coverage make it acceptable. With no annotations, more behavioral context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with clear explanations (language code examples, package name), so the baseline for high coverage is 3. The description only ties the 'language' parameter to the purpose but does not add additional parameter details, which is acceptable given schema completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets a store listing for a specific language, combining a specific verb ('Get') with a resource ('store listing') and a modifier ('for a specific language'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_all_listings' (retrieves all) and 'update_listing' (modifies). It is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_listings' or 'update_listing'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The description only states its function without any directional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'get' clearly conveys read-only retrieval, but the description does not state behavioral details such as scope, prerequisites, identifiers, or likely error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, clear, and front-loaded. It avoids filler and redundant phrasing while still stating the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and benefits from full schema descriptions and an output schema. However, the description is still minimal and leaves surrounding tool-selection ambiguity unresolved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%. The parameters are already described as 'Order ID to retrieve' and 'App package name,' so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a clear, factual one-liner: 'Get detailed order/transaction information.' It identifies the action and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish get_order from related siblings like get_external_transaction, get_product_purchase, or list_voided_purchases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention applicable contexts, alternatives, exclusions, or how get_order compares with batch_get_orders, get_external_transaction, or refund_order.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get details' and implies a read operation, but omits any mention of permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what exactly constitutes 'details'. For a tool that might have authorization requirements or return schema intricacies, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. This is an exemplary level of conciseness for a simple getter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents the return format), the description is adequate but not rich. It does not mention common pitfalls, error conditions, or how to identify the correct offer_id. Also, with many sibling offer-related tools, a note on how this differs from list_subscription_offers would improve completeness. Still, for a basic retrieval, it meets the minimum threshold.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already defines. It does not explain the hierarchical relationship between offer_id, base_plan_id, and product_id, but the schema's parameter descriptions are adequate on their own.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and the specific resource ('a specific subscription offer'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subscription_offers or create_subscription_offer. The use of 'specific' implies a single item fetch, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_subscription_offers or get_subscription. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, the lack of any usage context or contrast with similar tools leaves the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or how voided status is determined beyond the terse parenthetical. The verb 'list' implies read-only, but key behavioral traits are left implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical clarification adds value without bloat. It is appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is adequate but lean. It defines the key concept (voided purchases) and the schema covers parameters. However, missing usage guidance and behavioral transparency leave notable gaps, especially given the complete absence of annotations. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides for package_name and max_results. It does not clarify how parameters affect the result set, but the schema sufficiently covers them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('voided purchases') and adds a parenthetical definition ('refunds, chargebacks'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/fetch tools like list_subscriptions or get_product_purchase. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives like list_subscriptions or get_order, nor any prerequisites such as the required package_name. It only states what the tool does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which implies it is a write operation, but it does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., whether existing labels are overwritten), idempotency, or failure modes. For a mutation tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise—two short sentences that front-load the purpose and include one behavioral note. There is zero wasted wording, and the structure is simple and direct. It earns a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has only two parameters, a high schema coverage (100%), and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the core purpose and a behavioral note. However, as a write operation with no annotations, it lacks context on permissions, potential side effects, or validation requirements, making it only adequately complete for a basic use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters have descriptions ('App package name' and 'SafetyLabelsUpdateRequest resource body...'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema is thorough, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate with extra parameter insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Write the data safety labels declaration of an app.' It uses a specific verb ('write') with a resource ('data safety labels declaration') and is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other app management operations. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. While it implies usage for setting data safety labels, it does not explain scenarios or contrast with other tools (e.g., when to use upload_apk or update_listing). The phrase 'Disabled in read-only mode' hints at when NOT to use it, but that is already a behavioral note and not explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is useful but does not cover permissions, side effects, reversibility, or response behavior for this mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only mode warning earns its place as an important operational constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description is minimal for a mutation tool with no annotations, lacking usage guidance and deeper behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: updating a user's app-level access, which is the grant resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_grant and delete_grant by using 'update' and specifying the resource scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_grant, delete_grant, or update_user. The note about being disabled in read-only mode is a constraint, not a selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating operation via 'disabled in read-only mode,' but it does not explain side effects, required permissions, whether the replacement is atomic, or any consequences of replacing. The word 'replace' hints at overwriting, but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, a nested object, an output schema, and many closely related siblings, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. However, it does not clarify the exact semantics of 'replace' (e.g., does it overwrite all fields or only provided ones?), which is a meaningful gap for a write operation. The output schema and high parameter coverage mitigate some incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter insight, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. It does not erroneously misstate parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'in-app product', with the parenthetical 'replace' clarifying it's a full replacement. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_in_app_product (partial update) and create_in_app_product (new item).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for full replacement vs patch, nor does it state that it should not be used for creating products. The only caveat is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a restriction, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one behavioral insight: the tool is disabled in read-only mode. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or response behavior beyond the basic upload action, making it only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant information. It immediately states the core purpose and adds a brief behavioral note, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple upload tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It does not explain the relationship to sibling upload tools (e.g., upload_apk, upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle), which limits its contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described ('Local path to the APK file' and 'App package name'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Upload an APK') and the target ('internal app sharing'), which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like upload_apk or upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_apk or upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle. The only usage note is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a constraint but not a selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like whether deletion is permanent, if there are any side effects, or if partial failures occur. The description adds some value but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and adds a note about read-only mode. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain what happens on partial failure, whether the operation is atomic, or any rate limits. For a batch operation, more context about error handling would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'each with productId and optional packageName / latencyTolerance' in the schema, which is sufficient. The description doesn't add new semantic details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete multiple one-time products in a single operation.' It specifies the verb (delete), resource (one-time products), and scope (multiple, batch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_one_time_product (single) and batch_delete_in_app_products (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch deletion of one-time products but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., delete_one_time_product for single deletion). It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or conditions. The 'Disabled in read-only mode' line provides some context but not enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations. The description's only behavioral disclosure is 'Cannot be used in read-only mode', which adds a business rule but does not describe permissions, side effects, error handling, failure atomicity, or whether the operation validates the entire batch before applying changes. No annotation contradicts the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence (about 90 words) plus a 3-word read-only note. It is concise, front-loaded with the actual action, and uses no repetitive boilerplate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex: 4 parameters, a nested request object, and an output schema. The description does not mention partial failure behavior, idempotency, or return values, but the output schema exists and the request schema is rich. Not naming asynchronous batch semantics is a minor gap; otherwise the context is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 4 parameters 100%, and each schema description already includes field meanings (e.g., 'Parent the one-time product ID ('-' wildcard allowed)', 'Application package name', 'Parent purchase option ID ('-' wildcard allowed)', and 'UpdatePurchaseOptionRequestBody list'). The tool description adds no semantic content beyond the schema; the request object allows additionalProperties, which gives flexibility. Missing are in-schema perhaps semantics for nested UpdateOneTimeProductOfferRequest fields, but descriptions are not required if schema coverage is good.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action 'Batch update purchase option offers in a single operation' with a specific resource ('purchase option offers'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this batch tool from sibling tools like update_purchase_option_offer, which also perform single-offer updates; the batch context is implied by the name and 'single operation', but no alternative is named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the constraint 'Cannot be used in read-only mode' and implies batch usage ('in one operation'), but it lacks an explicit condition for when to choose this tool over single-item update tools (e.g., use for bulk updates; use update_purchase_option_offer for a single offer). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds one useful behavioral trait ("Disabled in read-only mode") but does not disclose what canceling entails, prerequisites (e.g., only pending recoveries), or side effects. Minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero fluff. It is appropriately compact, though the second sentence is thin in added value; still, technically concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the recovery lifecycle siblings (create/deploy/target/cancel), the description provides no lifecycle context or cancellation semantics. An output schema exists so return format is covered, and 100% param coverage helps, but the tool lacks behavioral depth for a state-changing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — both package_name and app_recovery_id are already described in the schema, so the description needs to add nothing. The baseline 3 applies since a description is neither required nor provided beyond schema labels.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Cancel an app recovery action" uses a specific verb (cancel) with a clear resource (app recovery action), and distinguishes from sibling lifecycle tools like create_app_recovery, deploy_app_recovery, and list_app_recoveries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on recovery lifecycle states, and no exclusions. The only added note (read-only mode restriction) is a behavioral constraint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one behavioral note ('Disabled in read-only mode'), which signals this is a mutation that will not function in read-only contexts. However, it fails to disclose whether cancellation is permanent/irreversible, whether it affects existing pre-orders or purchases, or what state the offer transitions to—significant gaps for a destructive-looking cancel operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and a meaningful operational constraint in the second. Every word earns its place and there is zero fluff. It is minimal, but not to the point of being harmful—though slightly more behavioral detail could have been added without hurting conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and params are fully documented in the schema, which covers the simple 4-param signature. However, the tool sits among close siblings (activates/deactivates/deletes on the same offer resource) with no guidance on how cancel relates to them, and there are no annotations to cover the safety/behavior profile. The description leaves enough ambiguity that an agent could confuse it with the deactivate tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all four parameters (offer_id, product_id, package_name, purchase_option_id) with clear meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema—the 'one-time' qualifier for offer_id is already present in the schema's property description. The description neither compensates nor detracts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Cancel a one-time product offer') and the example 'pre-order offer' adds helpful context. It clearly identifies the target as one-time product offers rather than subscriptions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related siblings `deactivate_purchase_option_offer` and `batch_delete_purchase_option_offers`, where the cancel-vs-deactivate-vs-delete distinction remains ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies scope by specifying 'one-time product offer,' which implicitly excludes subscription offers handled by other tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus `deactivate_purchase_option_offer` or `batch_delete_purchase_option_offers`, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives named. The 'Disabled in read-only mode' line is a constraint, not a usage-context directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a conditional constraint. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, rate limits, or behavior on failure (e.g., what happens if the bundle is not uploaded). This is insufficient for a tool that likely mutates state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a brief conditional note. There is zero filler or redundancy. It earns the highest score for conciseness because every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested variant object with additionalProperties, no annotations), the description is overly brief. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., that an app bundle must exist), expected behavior of the 'variant' object, or any constraints. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for lack of context around usage and preconditions. The description leaves many operational details undeclared.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific insights about the parameters beyond the schema; it mentions 'from an uploaded app bundle' which loosely ties to package_name and version_code but does not clarify the 'variant' object's structure or intended usage. The schema already documents each parameter adequately, so the description meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('system APK variant'), and the source ('from an uploaded app bundle'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_system_apk_variant, list_system_apk_variants, and download_system_apk_variant, making the tool's primary function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (requires an uploaded bundle) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, steps before calling, or exclusions such as 'use this after upload_bundle' or 'not for listing variants.' The guidance is minimal, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'delete all' and 'commit' which signal mutation, and notes 'Disabled in read-only mode' (a useful constraint). However, it fails to warn about irreversibility, potential impact on production listings, or any permission requirements. The destructive nature is understated for a bulk-delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. It wastes no words and is immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive bulk-delete tool with zero annotations, the description is too brief. It does not state that the deletion is permanent, that it affects all store listings for the specified language/type, or that it is irreversible. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential warning and consequence information required for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters (package_name, language, image_type) with clear descriptions regarding types and allowed values. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Delete all'), the resource ('store-listing images'), and the scope ('for a language and image type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_image (singular) and upload_image, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for bulk deletion of all images of a specific type and language, but does not explicitly contrast with delete_image or state when to choose this over alternatives. The mention of 'commit the edit' gives context that it persists changes, but there is no explicit 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Get' conveys a non-mutating status lookup, which is helpful given the lack of annotations. However, the description does not disclose authentication needs, quota implications, or whether the operation consumes or acknowledges the purchase, so the agent must infer the safety profile from the verb alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter getter with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the one-line description is mostly sufficient. It lacks guidance on selecting between this and get_product_purchase_v2, but overall the structured fields carry the remaining context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Get the status of an in-app product purchase.' This distinguishes it from mutation-style siblings like acknowledge_product_purchase and consume_product_purchase, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named get_product_purchase_v2.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description implies this is a read-only status lookup, but it never states when to choose this over get_product_purchase_v2, get_subscription_status, or other purchase-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get testers' without mentioning that it is read-only, potential authentication needs, or any error conditions. While 'get' implies non-mutating, the description does not explicitly confirm this or disclose any side effects or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the core function without extraneous content. It is front-loaded and every word adds value, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two required parameters, and the presence of an output schema indicates that return values are documented elsewhere. The description adequately covers the basic purpose, but it could mention what kind of testers are returned or any prerequisites (e.g., package must exist). Given the simplicity and that the schema handles details, it is near-complete but lacks a few contextual hints that would fully round it out.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (track, package_name), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'testers' with a specific scope ('for a specific testing track'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_testers by indicating a read operation, and there are no other tools with similar function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description is purely a statement of function without any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says what the tool lists, but does not mention read-only behavior, authorization needs, pagination, or absence of side effects beyond what 'list' implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, this description is mostly complete. It clearly states the scope (all store listings, all languages), and the schema covers the input need, though it could be more explicit about output or usage nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, package_name, which is described as 'App package name'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'store listings', with clear scope 'for all languages'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_listing, which targets a single listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_listing or update_listing. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions; usage context is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List all offers' without mentioning pagination, rate limits, required permissions, or any other operational details. No extra value beyond the core action is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and free of any superfluous content, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with a solid input schema and an output schema present, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose. However, it omits any mention of pagination or ordering behavior, which could be relevant for large data sets, but overall it is adequate for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions, so the schema carries the burden of parameter meaning. The description adds no additional context about the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (offers) with a specific scope (for a subscription base plan). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_subscription_offer (single) and create_subscription_offer (creation) by indicating a listing operation for all offers under a base plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_get_subscription_offers or get_subscription_offer. The description states only the function, not the appropriate context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden of disclosing behavior. It only indicates a list of users with access, but does not disclose return value composition, authorization requirements, or behavior on empty/error results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. No irrelevant context or restatement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema and a parameter schema, plus a rich sibling context. The main gap is that it doesn't describe empty-result handling or whether developer account listing requires special authorization details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter (developer_id) is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage and a clear comment. The description adds no further semantic nuance beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description has a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource/scope ('users with access to a developer account'), which conveys clear purpose. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but its scope (users vs purchases/promos/etc.) sufficiently distinguishes it from other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implicit: it is for querying users with developer access. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_user or list more generic users.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not disclose other important aspects such as idempotency, atomicity, permission requirements, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a key usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested object, many sibling subscription tools), the description is too sparse. It omits usage guidance, parameter relationships, and behavioral details. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description still lacks sufficient context for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how update_mask interacts with the subscription body or clarify the nested subscription structure. It provides no additional parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Partially update') and resource ('existing subscription product'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_subscription and delete_subscription, and the 'existing' qualifier clarifies it is for updating, not creating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for partial updates to existing subscriptions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_subscription for new products, batch_update_subscriptions for bulk updates). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only discloses 'Disabled in read-only mode' and gives no information about idempotency, field replacement semantics, auth needs, or side effects of the partial update.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with zero filler. The essential verb, resource, and a top-level constraint are front-loaded, making it very easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex PATCH/PARTIAL update tool with 7 parameters, a nested object, an update_mask, and an output schema, but the description does not explain how the update mask works, what the parent IDs reference, or how the partial request body is applied. It is enough to identify the tool but not enough to use it safely or correctly without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline applies. The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, and it does not clarify the interaction between the nested 'offer' object and 'update_mask'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Partially update an existing subscription offer', which is a specific verb and resource with the PATCH nuance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_subscription_offer, delete_subscription_offer, activate_subscription_offer, and batch_update_subscription_offers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'partially update' wording implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or mention alternatives like batch_update_subscription_offers or state-change tools. The usage context is only minimally conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions "optionally revoking the user's entitlement" which is a behavioral side-effect beyond just processing a refund — this is meaningful since it can affect the user's access. However, there are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose other potential side effects like whether the refund is reversible or if it triggers email notifications. It hints at the key consequence (entitlement revocation) but leaves room for more detail. The note that the default is false (from schema) is not repeated, but the description's explicit mention of the optional revocation adds value. It is a borderline case; since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden, and it partially covers the main side-effect but not the full scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, focused, and front-loaded with the core verb action. It avoids redundancy. However, it could benefit from a slight expansion on when to use it versus alternatives, but as a concise description, it is well-structured. The optional clause adds necessary detail without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a moderate complexity (3 params, output schema present). The description covers the primary action and the optional revoke flag, which is the main behavioral nuance. It doesn't explain return details, but an output schema exists. Given that siblings like refund_external_transaction exist, the description could note when to use this versus those (e.g., for Google Play orders vs external transactions), but that's a gap. Still, it is reasonably complete for a refund tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — all three parameters have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema; it just mentions 'optionally revoking the user's entitlement' which relates to the revoke parameter. That's a slight overlap but not substantial additional value. Baseline for high coverage is 3, which fits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the primary action: "Refund an order" and the optional revoke behavior. It communicates both the main action and the parameter constraint. The title 'Refund Order' repeats the tool name, which is redundant but not misleading, and the schema description and title together are clear. It does reveal the primary effect and the fields. The description says the same. The description might as a whole. But doesn't mention missing a single read, no requirement in the tool's semantics - the description as the. The purpose is clear from the verb-refund. The sm. Except for the schema. The criterion is not a contradiction. The resulting high-level. The tool. It does not contradict the
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description covers the low-level. The use of the financial transactions. The purpose clarity: The primary purpose. The description that the 'refund_order is in theschema coverage and. The ref. It is not 100%. The description does not include an output schema. The purpose. It's Everyone# 签约 Google Play Google. (split purpose, operational. etc. The description
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose that the tool creates/uses a new edit and commits it, plus that it is disabled in read-only mode. However, it does not describe permissions, side effects of committing, or any assumptions about the Android package. This is moderately transparent but not richly detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, focused sentences deliver the core action and the one important operational constraint. There is no filler, no repetition of schema fields, and no unnecessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple two-parameter schema, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. It could still briefly mention why this differs from the internal-app-sharing upload or the bundle upload, but it is not incomplete for core usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions already define apk_path and package_name. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Upload an APK to a new edit and commit it.' It identifies the resource (APK) and the commit behavior, which distinguishes it from bundle or expansion-file uploads. It does not explicitly contrast with the closely related upload_internal_app_sharing_apk sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of upload_bundle, upload_internal_app_sharing_apk, or other package uploads. 'Disabled in read-only mode' is a useful constraint, but it is not guidance for choosing among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool is disabled in read-only mode and that it commits the bundle, but does not explain the edit lifecycle, whether commits are reversible, or any permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a necessary operational constraint. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 2 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core action and the read-only constraint. It lacks context about the edit/commit flow, but for the given complexity, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (bundle_path, package_name) with clear meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Upload an Android App Bundle (.aab) to a new edit and commit it.' This clearly identifies the verb (upload), resource (Android App Bundle), and the action of committing, distinguishing it from siblings like upload_apk and upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_apk or upload_internal_app_sharing_bundle. The only mention is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a constraint but not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is useful but insufficient. It does not communicate irreversibility, potential side effects, atomicity, or permission requirements, leaving critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the read-only restriction as an important caveat, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, but the description lacks behavioral depth. It covers purpose and a single restriction, but omits details like whether the operation is atomic or if any conditions apply. Given the low behavioral transparency, overall completeness is only adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete multiple purchase options'), the target resource ('from a one-time product'), and the batch nature ('in a single operation'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling batch delete tools like batch_delete_in_app_products and batch_delete_purchase_option_offers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (deleting purchase options from a one-time product) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., single delete or batch delete offers). No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites beyond the schema-defined required parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important fact that this operation is disabled in read-only mode, which implies a mutating action. However, it doesn't detail permissions, side effects, idempotency, or response behavior, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no superfluous content. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single relevant constraint, using every word effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for the schema's structural richness, but it lacks usage context and deeper behavioral details beyond the read-only note. It doesn't clarify the relationship with update_grant or create_user, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (developer_id, email, grant) already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Grant') and resource ('a user app-level access'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like update_grant and delete_grant through the verb and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_user or update_grant. The only additional line, 'Disabled in read-only mode,' is an availability constraint, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description owns the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is disabled in read-only mode, which is useful, but it lacks other behavioral details like mutation consequences, permission requirements, or validations, which are often important for create operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences and immediately states the action and the resource. Every word earns its place, and the read-only mode warning is briefly added without clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a nested product object and an output schema, so best practices might suggest more context. However, the description plus schema coverage covers the essentials for a straightforward create operation. It is minimally adequate but lacks richer guidance on expected product resource requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'product' and 'package_name', so the tool description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, making this baseline acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new in-app product in the catalog, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_in_app_product, patch_in_app_product, and delete_in_app_product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implicitly tells when to use it (creating new products), but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. The note 'Disabled in read-only mode' is more about operational context than selecting between tool alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core behavioral effect and the read-only-mode restriction, but it does not mention whether deactivation is reversible, whether existing buyers are affected, or what permissions are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect. Every word earns its place, and the read-only-mode note adds useful context without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a straightforward state-change tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, but it omits guidance on relationship to sibling deactivate/cancel tools and reversibility details. It is minimally viable rather than fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured parameter descriptions already document each field. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('deactivate'), the specific resource ('one-time product offer'), and the intended effect ('making it unavailable to new buyers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like activate_purchase_option_offer and cancel_purchase_option_offer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_purchase_option_offer or batch_update_purchase_option_offer_states. The note 'Disabled in read-only mode' is a behavioral constraint, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which indicates it's a write operation and cannot be executed in read-only contexts. However, it does not mention any other consequences (e.g., permanence, associated data effects) that would be relevant for an agent to know before invoking. It provides a minimal level of behavior disclosure but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with the primary action stated in the first sentence and an important behavioral constraint in the second. Every word earns its place, making it well-structured and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple delete operation given high schema coverage and an output schema. However, it lacks context about the implications of deletion (e.g., effect on existing purchases or reversibility), which an agent might benefit from. It's adequate but not comprehensive, so a 3 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (product_id and package_name), covering 100%. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters, so it remains at the baseline of 3 given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a one-time product from the catalog.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_in_app_product or delete_subscription, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_in_app_product or delete_subscription. It only states the action without any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without addressing side effects like replacing existing releases, auth requirements, or deployment rollback. For a mutation-heavy deployment tool, this is under-disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, directly front-loaded with action and scope, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, but the description omits behavioral context such as whether the file must already be uploaded or how this differs from deploy_app. However, the schema and output schema cover input/output, making it usable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, except confirming the multi-language nature of release_notes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Deploy' and identifies the resource as 'APK or AAB file' with the qualifier 'multi-language release notes', clearly differentiating it from siblings like deploy_app or upload_apk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for deployments requiring multi-language release notes, but does not explicitly state when to use it over deploy_app or mention exclusions. It is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a meaningful operational constraint beyond the raw mutation verb and is not covered by annotations. However, with no annotations provided, the description still does not disclose other important behavioral traits such as required permissions, partial update semantics, or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The read-only mode warning is useful and front-loaded after the main purpose, so every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a nested user object, four required parameters, and an output schema, the description is minimal. It provides enough to understand the core purpose but lacks contextual guidance on when to use this tool, how update_mask interacts with user fields, or what 'account access' specifically includes. The rich schema partially compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents developer_id, email, user, and update_mask. The description adds little semantic value beyond the phrase 'account access,' which only loosely maps to the user/update_mask parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target ('a user's account access'), which distinguishes it from create/delete user and other update tools in the sibling list. However, 'account access' is slightly ambiguous and does not specify which user fields or permissions are affected.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description: use it to update a user's account access. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like create_user, delete_user, or update_grant, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is disabled in read-only mode, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other important behaviors like whether the upload overwrites existing images, requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure. The commit action is mentioned but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, with no annotations and a mutation tool, the description could add more context about prerequisites (e.g., must have an edit in progress), side effects (e.g., commits the image), and error conditions. The description is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning the image format (PNG or JPEG) which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (upload a store-listing image), the resource (store-listing image), and the format (PNG or JPEG). It also mentions committing to a new edit, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like upload_apk or upload_bundle, though the image-specific wording makes the purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for uploading store-listing images but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_images or delete_image. It mentions 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a usage constraint, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait ('Disabled in read-only mode') and implies a write operation via 'Upload,' but it does not describe success/failure behavior, permissions, size limits, or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and adding only the useful read-only constraint. There is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, the schema is complete, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on choosing this tool over sibling upload tools and does not cover important behavioral aspects beyond the read-only note.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; 'bundle_path' and 'package_name' are already fully described in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Upload') with a clear resource ('app bundle (.aab)') and destination ('internal app sharing'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upload_apk and upload_bundle by explicitly stating the .aab format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related upload tools such as upload_bundle or upload_internal_app_sharing_apk. The only contextual note is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a constraint rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states that the operation is disabled in read-only mode, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose the destructive/permanent nature of the delete, whether offers must be in a specific state, failure behavior, or any side effects on related resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a critical operational constraint. It is concise and well-structured with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch mutation tool, the description, together with a complete input schema and output schema, covers the essential selection and invocation context. A few gaps exist around reversibility and batch-size limits, but these are not critical given the presence of the output schema and clear parameter documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description adds no significant parameter-level detail beyond indicating that the operation deletes offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete'), identifies the exact resource ('multiple one-time product offers'), and notes the batch nature ('in a single operation'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_delete_one_time_products or batch_delete_purchase_options, which target different resource levels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for deleting multiple offers at once and provides a when-not condition ('Disabled in read-only mode'), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as delete_one_time_product_offers or batch_update_purchase_option_offers. It gives a basic usage context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which alerts the agent to a constraint. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., sending notifications to users), reversibility, or permission requirements. This is minimal but not fully transparent for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose and one for the read-only caveat. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. This is exemplary conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters and an output schema, so the description need not detail returns. However, given the richness of sibling recovery tools, the description could offer lifecycle context (e.g., 'after creating a recovery action') or clarify that deployment targets already configured users. It's adequate for the tool's simplicity but lacks completeness in explaining its role within the broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters clearly explained ('App package name' and 'App recovery action ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Deploy an app recovery action to users.' It uses a specific verb (deploy) and resource (app recovery action), and the target (users) is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_app_recovery (creating) and cancel_app_recovery (cancelling), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that a recovery action must already exist (via create_app_recovery) or that targeting is set separately. With many sibling recovery-related tools, the lack of contextual cues or exclusions is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'Get' verb implies a read, but the description reveals no additional behavior such as handling of missing reviews, permission requirements, or the optional translation behavior hinted by the translation_language parameter. For a tool with no annotations, this is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence: 'Get a single user review by its ID.' There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the action and the target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple getter, the input schema covers all parameters, and an output schema is present so return values are defined elsewhere. The description is sufficient for a targeted fetch operation, though slightly more context about the translation behavior would elevate it further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., review_id references get_reviews, translation_language explains optional translation). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single user review') and explicitly identifies the identifier ('by its ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_reviews, which lists reviews, and reply_to_review, which writes to reviews.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: users need a review ID to fetch a single review. The schema's review_id parameter notes it comes from get_reviews, hinting at a workflow, but the description itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_reviews or other alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys a read-only listing operation, but adds minimal behavioral detail beyond what the name implies. It doesn't mention pagination, sorting, authorization requirements, or what 'currently uploaded' means in terms of APK states, leaving some transparency on the table.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes meaning, and it's extremely efficient in conveying the tool's primary function. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The tool's low complexity reduces the need for extensive context. However, a brief note on how 'uploaded' differs from 'generated' APKs (given sibling tools) would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% (only 'package_name' with a basic description 'App package name'), so per the rubric, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely referring to 'an app' without elaborating on the parameter format or how to obtain it, but it is also not misleading.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and a clear resource ('APKs currently uploaded for an app'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_generated_apks' by adding the 'currently uploaded' qualifier, though it could be more explicit about how it differs from related listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to see uploaded APKs) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. The qualifier 'currently uploaded' hints at a distinction from generated APKs, but it never names sibling tools or explains when to use those instead, leaving the usage guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List all app recovery actions' and does not disclose pagination, filtering, read-only guarantees, or whether all recovery states are included. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two fully described parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It defines the resource and scope clearly, though it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral detail that would make it fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the app version scope, so it does not improve on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('app recovery actions'), and scopes it to an app version. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_app_recovery, deploy_app_recovery, and cancel_app_recovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need recovery actions for a specific app version), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation and 'currently uploaded' adds a state-based scoping (excluding pending or draft artifacts), which offers useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose return semantics, empty-state behavior, or whether the package_name must reference an existing valid app, leaving the agent to guess at edge cases for a tool where no annotation safety net exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence where every word earns its place. The verb leads, the resource and scope follow, and there is zero fluff or redundant restatement of the schema. For a tool of this simplicity, this is model-level concision without crossing into under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple operation (1 required param, no enums, no nesting) with an output schema provided to document return values, the description covers the core contract well. The only gap is the lack of contextual notes clarifying the relationship to similar listing tools (e.g., verify a bundle was uploaded before using list_generated_apks) — a nice-to-have, not a blocker, given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% — the sole parameter (package_name) is already documented as 'App package name.' The description's phrase 'for an app' provides a slight confirmatory link to package_name, mapping the parameter to the app scope, but adds no new semantic depth beyond establishing that the package identifies the app in question. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies and is correctly met.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'List' + 'the Android App Bundles currently uploaded for an app.' By naming the exact artifact type ('Android App Bundles'), it inherently distinguishes itself from close siblings like list_apks and list_generated_apks, and the state qualifier 'currently uploaded' further narrows scope. This is precisely the level of specificity that eliminates ambiguity in a large sibling set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus viable alternatives such as list_apks, list_generated_apks, or upload_bundle, all of which appear in the extensive sibling list. There is no stated context, preconditions, or exclusions. The purpose being inferable is not the same as providing usage guidance — the description simply omits this dimension entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the write nature and create-or-update behavior, which is valuable, but omits details like partial failure or field overwrite semantics. It provides enough basic transparency but not rich context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Slight redundancy in 'Create or update' followed by 'patch is create-or-update', but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but paired with a detailed schema and output schema. It covers the core behavior but lacks broader context like update_mask semantics or multi-product alternatives; still sufficient for a simple single-product operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Create or update') and resource ('one-time product'), distinguishing it from get/list/delete siblings. The 'create-or-update' clarification adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides some context (create-or-update semantics, disabled in read-only mode) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over batch_update_one_time_products or other alternative tools. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the automatic refund after 3 days (a key behavioral consequence) and implies a write operation (acknowledgement). However, it does not mention potential side effects such as idempotency, whether it can be called multiple times, or any permission requirements. The disclosed behavior adds some context but is not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides crucial operational detail (3-day refund window). No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, complete schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and critical timing, which is the most important context. However, it could benefit from noting that acknowledgement is typically required after consumption or to prevent refunds, and could mention that the tool is for managing in-app purchases. But the essentials are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description does not add additional parameter semantics; it only mentions the 'acknowledgement' action. For example, it could clarify the purpose of 'developer_payload' or how the package_name relates to the purchase. But since schema is complete, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (acknowledge) and the resource (in-app product purchase), and the context of 'in-app product purchase' helps distinguish from related tools like 'consume_product_purchase' or 'cancel_subscription_purchase'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the verb 'acknowledge' is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a critical timing constraint (must be acknowledged within 3 days) which implies when to use this tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The logic is clear for acknowledging purchases, but no explicit guidance on using alternatives like 'consume_product_purchase' for consumable purchases or 'get_product_purchase' to check status first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It includes one meaningful constraint—'Disabled in read-only mode'—which signals this is a write operation and warns about an important limitation. However, it does not disclose whether targeting is appended, replaced, or merged, nor any side effects or required preconditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only constraint is a useful, non-redundant addition. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex with a nested open-ended targeting object and an output schema, but the description does not explain the targeting structure or how it interacts with an existing app recovery action. The schema covers parameter names, yet the description alone leaves meaningful ambiguities about expected behavior and relationship to sibling recovery tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the targeting parameter remains open-ended ('AddTargetingRequest resource body') and could benefit from more concrete semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Add targeting to an app recovery action.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_app_recovery, deploy_app_recovery, and cancel_app_recovery, which perform different lifecycle operations on app recovery actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose it over alternatives nor when not to use it. No prerequisites or state requirements are given, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'deploy' with no mention of side effects (e.g., overwriting existing releases), permissions required, failure behavior, or whether the operation is atomic. This is insufficient for a mutation tool that could affect production tracks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a brief usage hint. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch deployment tool with no annotations, the description omits critical operational details like whether the operation is atomic, what happens if one track fails, prerequisites (e.g., whether the APK must be uploaded first), and how output is structured. While the output schema exists and covers return values, the lack of behavioral context makes the description only minimally complete for an action that could have significant consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context for the 'tracks' parameter by giving concrete examples (internal, alpha), but it does not clarify the optional parameters (release_notes, rollout_percentages) or their relationships. This adds marginal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deploys an app to multiple tracks in a single operation, specifying the exact resource and action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deploy_app (single track) and promote_release by emphasizing the batch capability across multiple tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides concrete use cases (internal and alpha tracks simultaneously, promoting to multiple testing tracks), which implies appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like deploy_app for single-track deployments, leaving some room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does contribute one useful operational constraint: 'Disabled in read-only mode.' However, it does not explain failure behavior, authorization needs, partial-failure semantics, or whether activations/deactivations are reversible, so the behavioral disclosure remains thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the second sentence adds a useful operational constraint. Every line earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema and full top-level parameter coverage reduce the burden, but this is a batch mutation with nested request bodies and no annotation safety profile. There is no detail on nested request construction, failure modes, or relationship to the many sibling state-update tools, leaving the context only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents package_name, product_id, and requests. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond linking the activate/deactivate action to the requests array, which meets the baseline but does not compensate for any schema ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb pair ('activate or deactivate') and names the resource ('multiple purchase options') plus the batch scope ('in a single operation'). This clearly distinguishes it from similarly named siblings like batch_update_purchase_option_offer_states and batch_update_base_plan_states.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'multiple... in a single operation' implies batch use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use this tool. It provides only weak contextual guidance rather than a clear decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful restriction ('Disabled in read-only mode') and implies a mutating operation, but does not describe potential side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. It is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the core purpose and a key restriction. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the operation is a batch process with nested request bodies, the schema covers parameters well and an output schema exists. The description does not address potential partial failures or transactionality, but given the minimal scope and existing structured fields, it is acceptable though not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (requests, product_id, base_plan_id, package_name) clearly described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (activate or deactivate) and resource (multiple subscription offers), explicitly indicating a batch operation. This distinguishes it from single-offer activation/deactivation tools like activate_subscription_offer and deactivate_subscription_offer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch operations but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus individual activate/deactivate calls or alternative batch tools. No exclusions or conditions are stated beyond the read-only mode restriction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all' clearly signals a read-only collection operation, but the description does not mention pagination, whether inactive or draft products are included, authentication needs, or other behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function adequately. However, it lacks usage-alternative guidance and behavioral depth (e.g., what 'all' includes), so it is adequate but not richly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the single parameter package_name as 'App package name', so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('subscription products') and scope ('for an app'). The 'all' qualifier distinguishes it from single-item tools like get_subscription and from related listing tools like list_subscription_offers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'List all subscription products for an app' implies the tool should be used when a complete list is needed, but it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. With many sibling tools, the agent gets no direct disambiguation help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key effect and the read-only mode restriction, but it does not explain permissions, reversibility, or side effects on existing plan state. This is enough for a simple activation operation but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose and effect; the second adds a meaningful operational constraint. No filler or redundant wording is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema fully documents all required parameters and an output schema exists, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds the plan-availability effect and read-only mode restriction, which is largely sufficient for a straightforward activation operation. Some lifecycle context regarding deactivate_base_plan could make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters package_name, product_id, and base_plan_id are already individually documented. The tool description adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource phrase ('Activate a subscription base plan') and clarifies the state-change effect ('making it available to new subscribers'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling lifecycle operations like deactivate_base_plan and delete_base_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the action verb and effect, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose activation over alternatives such as deactivate_base_plan or patch_subscription. 'Disabled in read-only mode' is an operational constraint rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the effect ('making it available to eligible buyers') and adds the operational constraint 'Disabled in read-only mode.' However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens after activation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple activation tool with four well-described parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, effect, and read-only restriction, though it could have mentioned prerequisites or supplemented sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Activate a one-time product offer, making it available to eligible buyers.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'one-time product offer' distinguishes this from sibling tools like activate_subscription_offer and deactivate_purchase_option_offer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: activate an offer to make it available to buyers. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as deactivate or cancel, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly conveys that this is a read-only batch operation, but it does not describe behavior around invalid/missing order IDs, partial failures, or authentication requirements. The output schema exists, but that does not fully compensate for the lack of edge-case transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a simple batch-retrieval tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. It could benefit from referencing the single-order alternative get_order, but the name and 'at once' cover the primary usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema, and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information'), the resource ('orders'), and the scope ('multiple orders at once'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_order, which retrieves a single order.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a batch-use context by saying 'multiple orders at once', but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_order or note exclusions. Usage guidance is present only implicitly through naming and wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (marks as consumed, enables repurchase) but omits potential side effects, irreversibility, or permission requirements. For a mutation operation, more disclosure could be expected, but the essential effect is clearly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and immediately states the action and outcome. It is front-loaded, with no redundant or filler content, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, straightforward action) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention that the product must be consumable and not yet consumed, but the description implies this. Overall, it covers the essentials adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all parameters (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add more. It correctly maps to the schema without introducing ambiguity or conflicting info, but it also does not enhance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Consume an in-app product purchase (for consumable products).' It specifies the resource (product purchase) and the action (consume), and distinguishes from similar tools like acknowledge_product_purchase by explicitly limiting to consumable products and stating the outcome (allowing repurchase).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for consumable products and the effect of allowing repurchase, but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like acknowledge_product_purchase or state when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only mode restriction, but does not mention other behavioral aspects such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. The description is minimal for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, direct sentences with no extraneous information. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately states the read-only constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 params), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states the operation and the read-only limitation; no further details are necessary for a straightforward delete action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the two parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the basic operation, providing no extra insight into parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('an in-app product from the catalog'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_subscription or delete_one_time_product by specifying 'in-app product'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions the read-only mode restriction, which is a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over other delete operations. The usage context is implied but not detailed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (downloading a variant to a local file) but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing destination file, required permissions, or failure behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the action and target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple download operation, all required parameters are documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. It could have added a note about prerequisite steps or alternatives, but it is sufficient for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Download') and identifies a precise resource ('previously created system APK variant') and destination ('to a local file'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_system_apk_variants or download_generated_apk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'previously created' implies the tool should be used after create_system_apk_variant, and the input schema notes variant_id comes from list_system_apk_variants. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over related alternatives such as get_system_apk_variant or download_generated_apk.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get details' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential requirements (e.g., permissions), error conditions, or data freshness. Minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-resource read with an output schema present, the description plus input schema are largely sufficient. However, the absence of any behavioral caveats or usage guidance beyond the bare minimum leaves a small gap in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with product_id and package_name already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific one-time product'). The word 'specific' distinguishes it from list_one_time_products and batch_get_one_time_products, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need details for a single one-time product, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_one_time_products or batch_get_one_time_products. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a useful constraint, but does not describe side effects, permissions, or irreversibility of the update. This is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. It communicates the core action and a critical restriction efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is sufficient. It could elaborate on what 'partial' means in practice, but the schema and tool context provide enough for a competent agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Partially update') and the resource ('an existing in-app product'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'update_in_app_product' by specifying 'partially', which is a key differentiator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for partial updates but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this over 'update_in_app_product' or other alternatives. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key read-only mode restriction, which is useful warning about a potential failure. But it does not mention authentication, whether the upload can overwrite an existing deobfuscation file, response behavior, or other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two short sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. The read-only mode restriction is placed separately and is concise. No unnecessary words or redundant statements are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only 4 simple parameters, a fully populated input schema, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It communicates what file type is being uploaded and warns about read-only mode. It could be more complete by noting when/why such a file is needed after uploading, but it is adequate for a straightforward upload mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each field has a meaningful description, so the bar for the tool description is lower. The description adds typical-value content by clarifying that ProGuard mapping and native symbols are the file types, which aligns with the deobfuscation_file_type option and default, but it adds no new detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Upload') and the resource ('a deobfuscation (ProGuard mapping or native symbols) file'), which precisely distinguishes this from sibling upload tools like upload_apk, upload_bundle, or upload_expansion_file. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes one operational restriction: 'Disabled in read-only mode.' However, it does not explicitly describe when to prefer this tool over related upload tools, nor does it mention any workflow context such as associating the file with a given APK version beyond the parameter names. Usage is mostly implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uploads to a new edit and commits it, and that it is disabled in read-only mode. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling, leaving some behavioral opacity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. It includes the read-only caveat without any filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema means return value explanation is not necessary. The description covers the key action and the read-only limitation, but as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from noting who can use it or the implications of committing the edit. Still, it is mostly complete for a straightforward upload tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the four parameters with descriptive text, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as file_path being a local path or expansion_file_type values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Upload an APK expansion file (OBB) to a new edit and commit it' with a specific verb, resource, and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_apk and upload_bundle by naming the exact file type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_apk or upload_bundle. The purpose implies usage for expansion files, but there is no explicit guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'get' and does not contradict any annotations. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, permissions, or the nature of the returned information, though the output schema likely covers that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently explains the purpose. It includes helpful background on expansion files without any fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward get operation with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's domain (expansion files) and relies on the schema for details, which is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying the expansion_file_type parameter or how version_code and package_name are used together.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves APK expansion file information, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like upload_expansion_file, which handles uploading, and also provides context on why expansion files exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the verb 'get' and context about large apps, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., upload_expansion_file) or provide exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer the read-only nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'previously created' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or requires no special permissions. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose and requires no additional reading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (as indicated) and the tool is simple, the description is adequate but not extensive. It does not mention potential behaviors like empty results or error conditions, nor does it provide usage context such as checking if variants exist before downloading. For a low-complexity tool with an output schema, this is minimally complete but could be richer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the tool works for an app bundle version. It does not provide additional detail about the parameters' formats or constraints, so it meets the baseline but adds little value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists previously created system APK variants for a given app bundle version. The verb 'list' and resource 'system APK variants' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_system_apk_variant (single) and create_system_apk_variant (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'previously created' indicates this is for existing variants, not for creation, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if you need a single variant, use get_system_apk_variant). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden for safety/effect info. It discloses that the operation is a mutation making the offer available and explicitly warns 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which signals a write operation. It does not elaborate on permissions, preconditions, or error cases, but for a simple state toggle it is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by a single operational caveat. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high schema coverage, output schema presence, and simple domain operation, the description covers the core purpose and adds a useful read-only-mode caveat. It lacks explicit sibling comparisons, but that is handled under usage guidelines and is not essential to the tool's basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of the 4 required parameters, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. The schema's field descriptions already identify offer_id, product_id, base_plan_id, and package_name, so the tool description need not repeat them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('subscription offer'), and clarifies the effect ('making it available to eligible subscribers'). It differentiates from siblings like deactivate_subscription_offer and create_subscription_offer by framing it as a state transition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for activating an existing subscription offer in a workflow, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over siblings such as create_subscription_offer or activate_purchase_option_offer, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives. The purpose sentence is enough to infer usage but doesn't state 'use this when the offer is ready to go live'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. It adds the note 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which signals the operation is a write that won't work in read-only contexts, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects like irreversibility or impact on purchases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a behavioral caveat. No redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential function and the read-only restriction. It doesn't detail edge cases or errors, but that's acceptable for a straightforward batch delete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (skus and package_name), yielding 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating the batch nature, so it doesn't go beyond the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete multiple in-app products in a single operation,' which specifies the verb (delete), resource (in-app products), and scope (multiple, batch). It distinguishes from the singular sibling tool delete_in_app_product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for batch deletion, stating 'multiple' and 'single operation,' which avoids using the singular delete tool multiple times. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool mutates base plan states and is disabled in read-only mode, which is useful. However, it does not cover permissions, atomicity, or mixed-request behavior, leaving only minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and scope, and the second adds a relevant constraint. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch mutation tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the read-only restriction. It could add more explicit guidance about when to prefer this over single base plan operations, but it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all three parameters clearly, including that 'requests' contains UpdateBasePlanStateRequest bodies with activate or deactivate nested requests. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the schema-heavy baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Activate or deactivate multiple base plans in a single operation.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the batch scope distinguishes it from sibling single-operation tools like activate_base_plan and deactivate_base_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'multiple base plans in a single operation' clearly implies it should be used when updating several base plan states at once, contrasting with the single-plan sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that existing subscribers keep their subscription and mentions 'Disabled in read-only mode,' but the latter is ambiguous (whether the tool is disabled in read-only mode or the plan is disabled). It lacks details on reversibility, side effects on billing, or any necessary permissions, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with three short sentences that each add value. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key behavioral impact without fluff. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main purpose and effects. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites like required permissions or whether the action is reversible, which would be helpful but not essential for a deactivation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the param semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to deactivate a subscription base plan, making it unavailable to new subscribers while existing subscribers retain their subscription. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_base_plan (which removes entirely) and activate_base_plan (which does the opposite).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool—when you want to disable a base plan for new subscribers without affecting existing ones. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer not to use it for permanent removal. Adding an explicit 'use delete_base_plan for full removal' would earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a behavioral note that it is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is helpful context. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as destructiveness, idempotency, or error behavior. For a deletion tool, more transparency could be expected, but the basic caveat is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the action and the read-only caveat. There is no superfluous text, and every word adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with three well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the core purpose and the read-only restriction. It does not detail edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's coverage, this is not a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (developer_id, email, package_name). The tool description does not add parameter-specific information, but the schema already explains each parameter's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove a user's app-level access.' This is a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a user's app-level access'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_grant and update_grant, which create or modify access, whereas this deletes it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is used to remove a user's app-level access. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is straightforward and there is no ambiguity about when to use it. The disposal of access is inherently distinct from creating or updating, so the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds the critical caveat 'Disabled in read-only mode' and implies an immediate commit ('commit the edit'). However, it doesn't disclose error handling, idempotency, or permission requirements, though for a simple delete of an image, the disclosed caveat is the most impactful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded ('Delete a single store-listing image by ID'), followed by the critical usage constraint in a short second sentence. Every word earns its place, consistent with the best-practice pattern in the calibration examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four required scalar parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: scope ('single store-listing image'), the commit behavior, and the read-only restriction. The sibling set includes delete_all_images, so single vs. bulk is the key boundary. It doesn't need to explain return values since none are defined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four required parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds a small amount of contextual value by linking 'store-listing' to the image_type enum and 'by ID' to image_id, but it doesn't provide syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema already contains.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Delete a single store-listing image by ID and commit the edit.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_all_images with 'a single' and provides the domain context 'store-listing'. The behavior is immediately understandable without referencing the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies single-item usage via 'a single' and conveys when it's disabled ('read-only mode'), but it never names an alternative tool for batch deletes or multi-image operations. Unlike the TDQS 4.3 example which explicitly points to a sibling, this only implies usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It conveys the read-only nature via 'get' and the all-tracks scope, but does not disclose details like response format, pagination, or required permissions. The output schema helps, but the description alone is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, directly states the tool's purpose with no filler. Excellent conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description captures the essential scope (all tracks) and read-only nature. Missing a bit of context on what 'release status' entails, but the output schema likely covers that, so this is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the only parameter (package_name) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation (get release status) and the scope (all tracks of an app), distinguishing it from sibling release-management tools like promote_release or halt_release.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear for a read-only status check, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. It serves well for a simple query tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List all offers' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, whether inactive offers are included, or any permission requirements. It's adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no redundant words and fully conveys the tool's purpose in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward list operation with well-documented schema parameters and an output schema (as indicated), the description is sufficient. It doesn't explain return format, but the output schema handles that. A note about pagination or wildcard behavior would have made it a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so no extra credit is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (offers for a one-time product purchase option). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscription_offers by explicitly mentioning 'one-time product purchase option', making the intent unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is for one-time product purchase options, which implies it is not for subscription offers. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals it's a mutating operation (activate/deactivate/cancel) and adds a real restriction ('Disabled in read-only mode'). However, it doesn't mention permissions, atomicity, or partial failure behavior, leaving some unknowns. It provides basic transparency but not rich detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a critical restriction. No filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the structure (action + scope + limitation) is optimal for quick agent parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description needn't explain return values or params. It adequately specifies the resource (one-time product offers), the operation (state changes), and a key constraint (read-only mode). The tool's moderate complexity is fully addressed within the description and surrounding structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters (e.g., wildcard usage, nested requests), but this is acceptable since the schema already covers them. Baseline 3 applies because the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifically states 'Activate, deactivate or cancel multiple one-time product offers in a single operation,' clearly identifying the action (batch state update) and the resource (one-time product offers). It distinguishes from siblings like batch_update_purchase_option_states (different resource) and batch_update_purchase_option_offers (likely field updates), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in a single operation' implies batching efficiency, and 'Disabled in read-only mode' clarifies when it cannot be used. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., individual activate/deactivate/cancel), but the sibling names and the resource specification make the intended use clear without exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ('Update') and mentions the special behavior of 'Set to 100 to complete', but it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or any requirements (e.g., permission or staged-release status). The description is not misleading but leaves these details uncovered, which is a moderate gap for an update operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The first states the primary purpose, and the second provides direct usage guidance. No filler or redundant content; every line earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema (per context signals), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how to complete the rollout. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the tool. The missing behavioral details are minor given the simplicity and schema completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra meaning by clarifying the direction ('increase or decrease') and the effect of setting to 100, but it does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already states (e.g., the '0-100' range). This is adequate but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'rollout percentage for a staged release', specifically distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'halt_release' or 'promote_release'. The focus on percentage adjustment makes the tool's scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to increase or decrease the percentage of users receiving an update' and 'Set to 100 to complete the rollout'. This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling set includes related release tools, a brief note on not using it for halting or promoting would have earned a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation is 'Disabled in read-only mode' and that only inactive plans with no active subscribers can be deleted, which are meaningful behavioral constraints. It does not explicitly warn about irreversibility, but that is inherent to 'delete' and the condition implies failure if unmet. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the second adds two crucial constraints. There is no fluff or repetition, and the information is front-loaded for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with three parameters and an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description covers the essential behavioral constraints: preconditions for deletion and read-only mode restriction. It does not explicitly mention what happens on failure (e.g., error if active), but the condition implies that. Given the simplicity and clear schema, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could add a note about error behavior for extra clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, with each of the three parameters (package_name, product_id, base_plan_id) clearly described. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail about the parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents them fully, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a subscription base plan.' It specifies the resource (subscription base plan) and the action (delete), and adds a concrete scope condition ('Only inactive base plans with no active subscribers can be deleted'), distinguishing it from related operations like activate/deactivate. This makes the purpose immediately clear and differentiates it from siblings such as deactivate_base_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear prerequisite for use ('Only inactive base plans with no active subscribers can be deleted'), which effectively tells the agent when the operation is allowed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like deactivate_base_plan or mention when to choose delete over state changes. The guidance is adequate but not fully explicit about selecting this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description discloses key constraints: deletion requires inactive status and no active subscribers, and the operation is disabled in read-only mode. It does not detail permissions or side effects, but 'delete' implies permanence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three terse sentences; the purpose is stated first and every sentence adds necessary constraint information. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward deletion tool, the description covers the essential preconditions and mode restriction. It could mention the need to deactivate active offers first, but the precondition implies it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the description need not add parameter semantics. It provides no additional parameter detail beyond the schema's parent IDs and offer ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'subscription offer,' clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like deactivate_subscription_offer and delete_subscription. The action and target are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states a clear precondition ('Only inactive offers with no active subscribers can be deleted') and notes 'Disabled in read-only mode,' giving context for when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as deactivate_subscription_offer for handling active offers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the outcome: 'The release will be marked as halted and users will stop receiving updates.' This is sufficient for a halt operation, though it doesn't mention reversibility or error handling, which is acceptable for this scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, two sentences long, with a clear front-loaded action verb. Every word earns its place, no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, all required, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the effect. It doesn't elaborate preconditions or post-conditions, but for a halt operation, this is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It simply restates the purpose without detailing parameter specifics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Halt a staged rollout' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like promote_release and update_rollout by focusing on stopping an ongoing rollout, not on progress or modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to stop a release that is currently rolling out.' This provides clear context without needing to compare to alternatives. However, it doesn't mention when not to use (e.g., if release is not in rollout state), but the condition 'currently rolling out' implies that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies output granularity (one entry per downloadable APK, including types) and that a download ID is included for use with download_generated_apk. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., missing bundle), or rate-limit behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, perfectly sized for the complexity. Front-loaded with the main point, uses parentheses for list of APK types, and ends with a direct pointer to the related download tool. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the absence of annotations and output schema content, the description effectively covers what the agent needs to know: input semantics, output unit, and next step. The only minor gap is ambiguous behavior when no APKs are found, but given the simplicity, this is a solid 4.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% via clear field descriptions ('App package name', 'Version code of the app bundle'), so parameters are well-documented. The description adds context on how these parameters are used to scope the listing, but does not need to add more because the schema already covers them well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('APKs Google Play generated from an app bundle version'), and clarifies scope (downloadable generated APKs, including split, standalone, universal, etc.), distinguishing it from generic 'list' tools and noting the link to download_generated_apk.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly implies when to use it—whenever details of downloadable generated APKs for a bundle version are needed—and names the companion tool (download_generated_apk) for the next step, though it does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives for cases where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that this variant identifies by token alone and returns line items and acknowledgement state, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not explicitly mention authentication, read-only-ness, or error behavior, but the verb 'Get' strongly implies a non-destructive status lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the core action, and the second sentence provides differentiation and return-value highlights. Every sentence contributes meaning with no unnecessary padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity of only two required parameters, full schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the v2-specific behavior, differentiates from the v1 tool, and calls out key return content, making the tool usable without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that purchase_token is the primary identifier and that no product ID is needed, which clarifies the role of both parameters and distinguishes this endpoint from stubs. It also implies the package_name is still required for API routing rather than product selection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get the status') against a specific resource ('in-app product purchase using the v2 API'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_product_purchase by noting the v2 method uses token alone and returns additional data, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives practical guidance by contrasting with get_product_purchase: it points out the v2 API is for token-only identification and that it returns line items and acknowledgement state. It does not explicitly say 'use this when X, avoid when Y', but the contrast implies the appropriate selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lusky3/play-store-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server