get_storefront_audit

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior: it returns the last cached scan, refresh:true only triggers a new scan when the last is >12h old, the call answers 202 with an eta and must be retried, and Pro tier gates the full table while Free sees only a preview. This async/retry/tiering context is exactly the value-add beyond structured fields.

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 what the tool returns, then behavior, then tiering; every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly overloaded with sub-clauses, but no filler or redundancy.

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 full burden and delivers: it describes the returned table's columns, the caching/refresh/retry lifecycle, and the Free vs Pro availability. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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 the schema already documents appId and refresh, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes further by explaining the refresh trigger condition and the 202/eta retry consequence, which are semantics the boolean's schema text alone does not convey.

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 verb+resource (audit of the iOS listing across App Store storefronts) and enumerates exactly what it surfaces: where the app is sold, which storefronts fall back on default text/screenshots, and the indexed second locale. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_store_page or get_store_funnel.

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 audit framing and the refresh/tiering notes, but it never says when to reach for this versus get_store_page, get_screenshot_text, or localize_listing. No explicit when/when-not or alternatives, so the agent must infer routing.

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