get_app_store_state

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It usefully discloses that screenshot/review inventory is redacted and that omitting version changes the result from candidates to detailed metadata, which goes beyond structured annotations.

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 convey the core action, the two call modes, and the redaction detail without any filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the two invocation modes and gives a reasonable sense of return contents, but there is no output schema and no explicit mention of return shape, metadata fields, or error behavior. For a read-only tool with strong annotations this is acceptable, yet some operational details remain underspecified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It usefully explains the effect of the optional version parameter, but it does not add semantic explanation for appStoreId, bundleId, or platform beyond what their names, patterns, and enum already imply.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names a clear resource ('verified app/bundle identity'), which is far more informative than a mere label. It also distinguishes two behavior modes (candidate inspection vs. exact metadata read), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_bundle_id_state.

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?

It provides clear guidance on how to vary the version parameter: omit it to inspect candidates, or specify platform/version to read full metadata. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over get_bundle_id_state or other sibling tools, so tool selection remains inferential.

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