supported_app_languages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that – 'bounded' hints at pagination but is not explained, and there is no disclosure of auth/profile requirements or rate limits.

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 padding. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of density.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with 9 parameters and a generic report schema the description is far too thin. It never explains what 'bounded' means, what language metadata is actually returned, or how to scope the query.

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 documents all 9 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and notably fails to clarify which fields/filters are valid for a language query, which is the key uncertainty for this generic report-shaped schema.

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 verb ('Query') and a resource ('App Store advertising language metadata'), but the qualifier 'bounded' is ambiguous and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like app_locale_details or product_page_locales that also surface locale/language data. The agent can guess the general area but not precisely what this returns.

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 tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for language vs locale data. The agent has to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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