Get store listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses derived data ('character counts against Apple's limits') that the agent cannot infer from the schema, plus the breadth of what is retrieved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource before listing contents. It is dense but every element earns its place; slightly long, but no padding or repetition.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the return contents. The only minor gap is that it doesn't restate the default version selection (editable/live), though that is fully handled in the schema.

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 five parameters (app, full, locale, version, platform) with their defaults and the enum are fully documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Shows') and resource ('the App Store listing'), then enumerates the returned fields (name, subtitle, privacy URL, categories, description, keywords, age rating, review contacts). This clearly differentiates it from read siblings like list_apps/get_app_status and from the write-side siblings like update_listing and set_whats_new.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. However, the exhaustive content enumeration implicitly tells an agent this is the tool to fetch the current listing, so usage is inferable rather than stated.

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