App audit

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for disclosing return semantics instead: the weightings, the verdict enumeration, the four takeaway categories with their trigger conditions, and demand history. It stops short of stating freshness/caching or computation cost, which would complete the picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the score definition, which is good, but the body is one sprawling sentence dense with nested parentheticals that make the takeaway taxonomy hard to scan. Nearly all content is substantive, yet a bulleted or clause-separated structure would cost nothing.

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 carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly — component scores, verdict labels, takeaway types, and history. Remaining gaps (data freshness, whether the audit recomputes on call) are modest.

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?

Only one parameter (projectId), and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including provenance ('from get_overview'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema 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?

Opens with a specific verb-and-resource framing ('Where the app stands, 0-100, per tracked market and overall') and enumerates the concrete sub-scores it returns (rankings, listing, competition, verdict). It is clearly a read-only audit/report tool, distinct from get_overview or get_optimizer, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 closing sentence 'Use it to pick the next optimizer or keyword step' implies the decision context (choosing between optimizer vs keyword work), which is useful routing. But there are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for the 'I just want a quick summary' case (get_overview).

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