apps_eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say whether the call hits Apple's API live (openWorld), whether results are scoped to the ad account or the app, or what the check actually evaluates.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but at that length it is under-specified rather than efficient — there is no second sentence carrying the distinctions the agent needs.

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 nine parameters including time ranges, filters and pagination, and no app identifier, the description should explain what is being checked and which parameters are actually relevant. The output schema covers return values, but the input-side ambiguity is unaddressed.

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 every one of the nine parameters is documented in the schema and the description is not required to compensate. However, it offers no explanation for why a reporting-style surface (fields, filters, timeRange, pagination) accompanies an eligibility check, leaving the agent to guess which params matter.

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 gives a clear verb ('Check') and a domain resource ('App Store advertising eligibility'), but leaves 'eligibility' undefined and never says whose eligibility — no app identifier appears in the parameter list, so an agent cannot tell whether this answers per-app or per-account questions or how it differs from siblings like apps_get and apps_search.

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 statement of when to use this instead of apps_get, apps_search, or app_opportunities, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a pre-flight check.

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