get_store_app_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: this hits an external public API and release notes are not persisted in instance tables, meaning no fallback source exists. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes for the external dependency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the data-provenance caveat and the prerequisite tool. No redundant or filler text.

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, three fully documented params, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the two things an agent cannot infer: the external API source and the prerequisite lookup tool. Minor gap in not noting pagination/failure behavior, but nothing blocking.

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%, including the listing_id provenance note that the description repeats. No parameter-level meaning is added beyond the schema, so the 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?

Specific verb (get) + resource (version history with release notes) + scope (Store app, public Store API). The statement that release notes are not stored in any instance table and this is the only programmatic source clearly distinguishes it from record-query siblings like query_records.

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?

Explicit prerequisite routing: 'Use search_store_apps to find the listing_id.' It does not state when NOT to use it or name a fallback, but the dependency chain is unambiguous for an agent to act on.

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