op3_app_share

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond those annotations: it cautions that download share can be inflated by apps that re-request files, and it advises that listener share is the more honest metric. This helps the agent interpret results correctly rather than simply invoking the 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 three sentences with no filler: it states output scope, gives a routing rule with rationale, and adds a column-interpretation caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 query tool with a rich schema and strong annotations, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns, when to prefer it, how to interpret its columns, and how it differs from a close alternative. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description already naming the key output dimensions.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters including defaults, bounds, and formats. The description reinforces the importance of start/end window semantics but does not add parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 starts with a specific, concrete statement of what the tool returns: the podcast apps a show's audience uses, with unique listeners alongside downloads, over a user-selected window. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like op3_global_app_share by emphasizing 'a show's audience' and from OP3's built-in app query by emphasizing flexible windowing.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this tool over OP3's built-in app query: whenever the window matters, because the built-in endpoint is locked to the last three calendar months. This is direct, actionable routing guidance that prevents incorrect tool selection.

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