op3_benchmark_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the result is a relative index, not raw share, and a high raw percentage can still be an under-index. It does not describe output shape or sorting, but the core interpretation is clear.

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 front-loads the core definition and uses a single concrete example to make the index concept actionable. The sentence about turning app share into something actionable is slightly promotional, but it reinforces purpose without making the description bloated.

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 fully documented parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies enough output semantics—app mix benchmarked against global mix with 100 as average—for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results. It could be more explicit about the response being a per-app list, but the core intent is unambiguous.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; the min_share rationale is in the schema, not in the description.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a show's app mix), the comparator (OP3's global mix), and the key output concept (an index where 100 means exactly average). It does not use an explicit verb like 'benchmark' or 'compare', and it does not name sibling alternatives, but the 'against OP3's global mix' phrasing distinguishes it from raw app-share tools.

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 provides a concrete use case: look for over-indexed apps to find where this audience is unusual and reachable. The Apple Podcasts example also explains why raw share is a misleading filter. It does not explicitly say when to prefer op3_app_share or op3_global_app_share instead, so exclusions are absent.

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