App audience age and gender

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: the licensing gate that determines whether this endpoint is callable versus its Audience Insights counterpart, which is a real access constraint an agent should know before invoking.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded before the licensing caveat. Tight and well-ordered; it could arguably compress the licensing note but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output content (age/gender split plus baseline), and the licensing constraint. Remaining details (dates, granularity, output encoding) are handled adequately by the rich schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 82%, so the schema already documents nearly all 11 parameters, including format, fields, batching, and dry_run. The description mentions the category baseline, which loosely maps to include_baseline, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific resource and metric — the age and gender split of an app's users, plus a category baseline — which is far more than a restatement of the name. It also differentiates itself from the sibling sensortower_audience_demographics by licensing tier, though it references the alternative by concept ('Audience Insights equivalent') rather than by tool name.

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

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

It implies when to pick this tool (App Analysis license holders, generally licensed) versus the Audience Insights variant (separate subscription), which is useful routing context. However, it never states an explicit 'use X when / use Y when' rule or names the sibling tool, so the agent must infer the selection logic.

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