Top publishers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). The description adds genuine structural context beyond annotations: each row nests an apps[] array and custom_tags is stripped at both levels unless keep_custom_tags is set. This is useful output-shape disclosure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope before the nested-output caveat. No waste, though the double-em-dash clause is slightly dense.

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?

With 15 parameters and no output schema, the description should carry more weight for output interpretation. It discloses the nested apps[] shape and custom_tags stripping, which is helpful, but ignores return-value semantics for the delta/transformed_delta comparison modes and many params.

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 coverage is 67%, so roughly a third of parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only clarifies keep_custom_tags behavior and implies a units/revenue choice via 'downloads or revenue', leaving most params (measure, format, comparison_attribute) to the schema. Baseline 3.

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 verb+resource: 'Publisher-level leaderboard by downloads or revenue.' The 'publisher-level' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from app-level siblings like top_apps/top_charts, though it never names them explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as top_apps or top_charts. An agent must infer the use case from the resource name alone.

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