Apple's Top Shows chart

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the chart is Apple's own weighted ordering, moves slowly, is capped at 100, and genre filtering is applied to the overall chart rather than requesting a different chart. This genuinely helps an agent predict behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct relevant fact: weighting, slow movement, cap, and genre behavior. There is no repetition or 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 read-only chart tool with three documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers all the key non-obvious aspects an agent needs: ordering method, cap, per-storefront behavior, genre-filter semantics, and the absence of genre charts. Nothing important seems 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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful context: Apple caps results at 100, storefronts are country-specific and can change the answer, and genre filtering filters the overall list rather than selecting a separate chart. This enriches the schema's parameter explanations.

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 exactly what the tool does: returns Apple's live Top Shows chart for one storefront, ranked. It goes beyond a generic statement by explaining Apple's own ordering, weighting, the 100-show cap, and the per-country nature, which distinguishes it from any chart-like siblings.

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 clear context on when this chart is appropriate: it is Apple's single overall per-country chart, and there is no separate genre chart. It explicitly warns that genre filtering only filters this list. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the caveat about genre charts provides useful when-not guidance.

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