Local pricing plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are cached for 10 minutes and refresh re-reads the console, and the data originates from external App Store Connect / Play Console systems. It does not cover auth/connection prerequisites or pagination/result size, which matters for a large multi-country payload.

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 entire description is a single dense run-on sentence that opens with a long noun pile ('The app's subscriptions / in-app purchases ... or base plans / one-time purchase options ...') rather than a verb and purpose. The most useful operational facts (caching, read-only) are buried at the tail. The content is relevant but poorly front-loaded and hard to scan.

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 burden of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly — selection status, per-country price states, share of base, change/override/skip reasons, spread previews, data sources, last publish report. Combined with the cache note, an agent knows what it will get. The missing piece is workflow context relative to the sibling pricing mutation tools.

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 three parameters (country, refresh, projectId) are already documented with patterns and defaults. The description reinforces the semantics — base-country price versus per-country plans, and refresh meaning re-read — but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description names a specific resource set — App Store subscriptions/IAP and Google Play base plans/one-time purchase options — with concrete detail (today's price in base country, per-country today/scheduled/proposed prices, spread previews, last publish report) and closes with 'Reads App Store Connect / Play Console'. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, contrast itself with the adjacent pricing tools (plan_pricing, publish_pricing, get_publish_preview), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to call this versus plan_pricing (to change prices) or get_publish_preview/publish_pricing (to ship them). Usage is only implied by the fact that it reads current state. The only operational guidance given is the caching/refresh note, which is behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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