get_featuring

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context: it explains the meaning of the dedicated flag (true = story about this app, false = in a collection) and discloses that dated history is included.

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 returned content and closing with the country-scoping rule. Dense but every clause maps to real content; no filler or tautology.

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 return values and does so well by listing the four featuring data categories. A read-only, two-parameter tool is adequately covered, though nothing is said about result volume, date formats, or ordering of the history.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'empty = every country' behavior which the description largely repeats. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond 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?

The description names a specific resource (Apple App Store featuring placements) and enumerates exactly what is returned: editorial cards, In-App Events, the 'You Might Also Like' shelf, and dated history. It clearly separates this from sibling read tools like get_app or get_store_page, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

The only guidance is a parameter-level instruction: 'Leave country empty for every country the app tracks.' There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing away from alternative tools, so usage is only implied by the content description.

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