play_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the aspects returned, but does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, what happens for an invalid/missing packageName, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations.

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 a single front-loaded clause with a colon-separated list and no redundant words. The subject, 'Estado da app na Play,' is clear, and the field list is compact and meaningful.

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?

For a one-parameter status tool, the description minimally covers the output areas by naming tracks, versionCodes, and listing. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter guidance, it leaves the agent to assume response format and input semantics, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0% and the description never mentions packageName or its expected format. The property name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the agent must infer that packageName identifies the app to query.

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 identifies the resource (app on Play) and the topic (status), and enumerates the exposed aspects: tracks, versionCodes, listing. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' but 'Estado' clearly signals a status/read operation and distinguishes it from sibling action tools like play_publish or play_update_listing.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as play_list_reviews, play_update_listing, or play_publish. The read-only status meaning is only implied by 'Estado,' but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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