SensorTower API quota

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds material behavior: the call is free (cost implication), that it is the sole genuine API-key validation endpoint, and that other endpoints can falsely appear healthy. This is high-value context beyond the structured fields.

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

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

Three sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct claim: purpose, cost/validation trait, and the diagnostic action. No filler and no repetition of the title or schema.

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

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

For a zero-required-param health-check tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and when to call. It does not describe the shape of the quota payload, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simple diagnostic role.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (format enum, dry_run) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific resource (monthly request quota for user and organisation) and specifies it is free of charge and the only endpoint that genuinely validates the API key. This clearly distinguishes it from the many data-retrieval siblings that share the sensortower_ prefix.

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

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

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first when anything returns 401.' It also explains why an alternative is misleading ('/v1/{os}/apps returns 200 with full metadata even for a garbage token'), which is exactly the when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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