apple_list_custom_product_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a read-only operation and the description discloses the returned data shape, but it omits permissions, pagination behavior, and any side-effect confirmation. That is adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose and key return details efficiently.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description explains the main returned fields, but it does not cover the visible filter, pagination behavior, or output-schema details. It is sufficient to start a call but not complete enough for confident use across all cases.

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 0% and there are two parameters. The description's "for an app" loosely maps to appId, but the optional visible filter is completely undocumented, leaving a meaningful gap that the schema cannot fill.

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 uses a clear verb ("List") and names the resource ("custom product pages for an app") plus the included data (versions, deep link, page URL). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like apple_get_custom_product_page or apple_list_custom_product_page_versions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a contextual hint (page URL for ad campaigns), which implies a use case, but does not state when to use this tool versus apple_get_custom_product_page, apple_list_custom_product_page_versions, or other custom-product-page tools. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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