Developer apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about result size limits, pagination, or ordering of the returned apps — behavior an agent would want to know when listing a prolific developer's catalog. It is consistent with the annotations, just thin.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource and the required identifier up front and zero filler. Nothing is redundant with the schema in a wasteful way.

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 simple read-only lookup with four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it needs. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any note on result volume or pagination behavior, which matters for developers with large catalogs.

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 all four parameters (devId, lang, country, verbose) are already documented in the schema, and the description's mention of artistId merely restates the devId description. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all apps published by a developer') plus the key input ('iTunes artistId'), which distinguishes it from search_apps and app_details. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool or contrast its scope with list_apps, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Use is implied by the phrase 'given the developer's iTunes artistId' — you call it when you already have an artistId. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as list_apps or search_apps, and no note about what to do if you only have an app ID rather than a developer ID.

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