App ratings history

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

Annotations already handle safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: data freshness/provenance (recorded after each rank check), and differing granularity between sources (App Store per storefront vs Google Play global). It does not address volume, ordering, or a cap on returned daily points, which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the returned measures; every clause carries information. It is slightly run-on with stacked parentheticals, but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return shape (latest values, newRatings, ratingChange, daily points) and the per-market/per-storefront breakdown. Missing only minor operational detail such as result ordering or how the daily series is bounded.

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% with only two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `days` is a lookback range and that results are broken out per market, but adds no format or constraint detail (e.g. the 365-day cap) 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 names the exact resource (average rating and rating count per market over a date range) and enumerates the returned measures (latest values, newRatings, ratingChange, daily points). No sibling tool covers ratings, so the agent can distinguish it cleanly from get_overview, list_rank_alerts, popular_searches and other read tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('recorded after each rank check', 'last days', 'per market'), which tells the agent what the data represents but not explicitly when to pick this over another source. With no true sibling for ratings data, the absence of explicit routing guidance is a minor but real gap.

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