Top and new apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds store-specific semantics that annotations cannot convey (trending vs editorial for 'best', per-store slugs, Myket's 'productivity' actually being utilities). It says nothing about result shape or how ranking ties are ordered.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, with store-specific qualifications following. The parenthetical enum callouts are useful because they tie prose to the actual enum values, though the line-broken layout and the trailing Myket taxonomy note add density without much structure.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back, and 'list ... of a store' does convey that it is an enumeration of apps. Pagination and page-size limits are already carried by the schema, so the remaining gap is only the exact return shape and ordering guarantees.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema — baseline is 3. The description does go slightly beyond by explaining that slugs are store-dependent and that Myket's 'productivity' covers ride-hailing/operator/government apps, but it does not clarify the interaction between 'type', 'category', and 'kind' beyond what the schema states.

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 the top (best) or newest (new) apps or games of a store' — and pins the scope as 'per category or store-wide', which separates it from a general search like ap_search. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so an agent must infer that ap_search handles keyword queries.

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 gives real operating context: store-wide 'best' means Bazaar's trending list vs Myket's editorial list, and slug conventions differ per store (see ap_categories). The parenthetical spells out which enum value ('best'/'new') maps to which behavior, though it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative for keyword lookups.

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