list_iaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the app-scoping constraint; it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or what fields are returned for a list tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple one-parameter list tool. It is efficient though nearly bare, leaving little beyond the minimum.

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 read-only list tool with one documented parameter, full annotation coverage, and no output schema to explain, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Missing pagination and return-shape notes are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents appId as the App Store Connect app ID. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (in-app purchases) scoped to an app, so an agent can distinguish it from get_iap, create_iap, list_iap_localizations, and list_subscriptions. It stops short of naming how it differs from those siblings, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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 only implied by the name and the 'for an app' scope; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_iap for a single IAP or the localization/subscription listing tools. An agent can infer the intent but must reason about the alternatives itself.

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