Search the store

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds genuine operational context the annotations can't: per-store result caps (200 Apple, ~30 Google) and default page size of 10, which an agent must know to size the limit parameter. Missing only latency/rate-limit or pagination behavior.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core scope, with the per-store limits folded into a parenthetical rather than a separate paragraph. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 does carry return-value information (the trackedAs {projectId, kind} marker) which is exactly what an agent needs to decide between a new and existing app. It doesn't enumerate the rest of the returned app fields, a minor gap for a search tool.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying that 'term' can be a store URL and by explaining the store-dependent ceiling on 'limit' beyond the schema's blanket maximum of 200. 'country' market semantics are left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live store search in one market') plus concrete scope: 10 apps by default, up to 200 on Apple, ~30 on Google. Also names what it accepts (term or pasted store URL) and what results carry (trackedAs), which distinguishes it from the many project/app-mutation siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow pointer: 'Use it to find app ids before add_app.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right first step. It stops short of naming exclusions or contrasting with list_console_apps/ask_assistant, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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