apple_list_app_price_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List current' implies a read-only snapshot and the base-territory scoping is useful, but it does not mention permissions, pagination, rate limits, or what the limit parameter controls.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The semicolon cleanly appends the follow-up workflow without adding filler.

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 three-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and one downstream use. It still leaves out pagination/limit behavior and the shape of the returned price-point data, so it is only minimally complete.

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%, with appId and territoryId described in the schema while limit has no description. The description adds the base-territory concept and the downstream use of returned IDs, but it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 verb and resource: list current App Price Points for an app in a base territory. It is clear enough to act on, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as apple_get_iap_price_points or apple_get_subscription_price_points.

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 a useful downstream workflow by saying a returned ID should be used with apple_set_price. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over apple_get_pricing or the IAP/subscription price-point siblings, so usage is only implied.

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