get_top_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source ('from the latest scrape') and output fields, but doesn't mention auth needs, rate limits, or if data is cached. However, it adequately describes the tool's behavior for a read-only list operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, no redundant words. Efficiently communicates purpose and output.

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 list tool with low complexity, the description is complete. It specifies input (category, optional limit), output contents, and data freshness. No output schema needed given the clear output description.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by noting the category slug comes from list_categories and that limit defaults to 25, providing context 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 clearly states the tool retrieves current top-ranked apps in a Shopify App Store category, specifying it's from the latest scrape and listing output fields (position, app metadata, rating, review count). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_app (single app) and search_apps.

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 implies use when wanting top-ranked apps by category, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or compare to alternatives like search_apps. No exclusion criteria or usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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