get_charts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful context that Google Play is intentionally absent and that no invented numbers are returned, but it does not disclose return format details, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 tool's output scope, followed by a concise and necessary clarification about Google Play. Every sentence 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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (current ranks per list plus history) and the data source (App Store only). It leaves some details unspecified, such as history granularity or country defaulting, but those are minor gaps.

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 both appId and country are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource and scope: App Store chart position for one country, including rank lists and history. It clearly distinguishes itself from Google Play coverage, but does not name or differentiate from sibling tools like market_charts or check_rank.

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 scope (per-app, one-country App Store charts), and the Google Play exclusion sets a clear boundary. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as market_charts or get_chart_movers.

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