check_app_store_info

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 but only states the basic lookup action. It doesn't mention critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output might contain (e.g., app details, ratings). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It directly communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no structured behavioral hints. It fails to address what information is returned, how errors are handled, or any operational constraints, leaving the agent under-informed about the tool's full context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('app_name' and 'country') well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Look up') and resource ('app information from the Apple App Store'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_music', which might also involve lookup operations, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_service_status' or 'search_music'. It lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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