get_listing_timeline

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it explains how rank movement is derived (last measurement before the change vs. the last one within `window` days after) and that five biggest moves are included. No rate limits or auth notes, but the derivation logic is unusually informative.

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?

Front-loaded with the core subject ('Dated changes to one app's listing') and largely earns each clause. It is a single long sentence dense with em-dashes, which packs value but is somewhat hard to parse; a mild structural improvement is possible.

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 the return payload, and it does so well — listing change types and the rank-movement breakdown. For a read-only, 4-param tool this is nearly complete; only cross-tool usage guidance is missing.

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 the schema already documents appId, window, country, and platform. The description reinforces window ('within `window` days after') and the country/platform defaults add no new info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Dated changes to one app's listing') and then enumerates the change categories (version, screenshots, in-app events, featuring, keyword-field edits) plus the rank-movement payload. This is highly concrete and would let an agent distinguish it from generic history tools. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like get_history or get_change_impact.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., get_history, get_change_impact). Usage is only inferable from the content description, and with several overlapping-sounding siblings the omission is a real routing gap.

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