Benchmark apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine interpretive context about what the index means and why min_share exists, but it says nothing about the shape or size of the returned result, pagination, or how many apps come back. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is four sentences and opens with the mechanics, which is reasonable, but 'This is the tool that turns app share into something actionable' is filler, and the 40% Apple Podcasts example is illustrative padding rather than operational detail. Roughly half the text earns its place.

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 explaining what the returned index means, and it does that well (100 = exactly average, raw share can mislead). Parameters are fully covered by the schema. It is largely complete for this tool, with only the output structure left implicit.

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 five parameters (identifier, start, end, bots, min_share) are already documented in the schema, including the min_share rationale. The prose adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific comparison: a show's app mix versus OP3's global mix, producing an index where 100 = average. That is a clear verb+resource an agent can act on. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the obvious siblings op3_app_share and op3_global_app_share, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 implies when the tool matters ('over-indexed apps are where this audience is unusual and where it can be reached deliberately'), which is interpretive guidance rather than routing guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to use this over op3_app_share, nor any exclusion or precondition. Usage is implied, not specified.

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