improve-public

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It discloses the tool's multi-stage behavior, keyword source priorities (locale-specific research with fallback), iOS/Android combination logic, and critical constraints about not creating files. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 appropriately front-loaded with core purpose and critical instructions, but becomes verbose with detailed sections like 'HOW THIS TOOL WORKS', 'WORKFLOW', 'STAGES', and 'KEYWORD SOURCES'. While all content is valuable, some redundancy exists (e.g., stage explanations repeated across sections), making it longer than necessary for optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multi-stage workflow, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides substantial context about behavior, constraints, and workflow. It explains what the tool returns (prompts with instructions) and what the agent must do with results. However, without an output schema, it doesn't fully describe the return format structure, leaving some ambiguity about the prompt content.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic meaning of 'stage' parameters (1=primary optimization, 2=localization, both=combined), clarifying that 'optimizedPrimary' is required for stage 2, and detailing how 'locale' parameter works with batch processing. It provides context beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 states the tool 'Returns ASO optimization instructions with keyword research data' and specifies the exact workflow with stages. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search-app' (which must be used first) and 'save-locale-file' (which must be used after). The purpose is specific, actionable, and differentiated.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use search-app tool first to resolve the exact slug' and detailed workflow instructions for when to use stage 1 vs stage 2. It names alternatives ('search-app' as prerequisite, 'save-locale-file' as follow-up) and specifies critical constraints like 'Only processes existing locale files. Does NOT create new files.'

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