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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false for what sounds like a read, and the description explains exactly why: each call with files ready creates new links and retires earlier ones, so only the latest works. It also discloses the 24-hour expiry and the full sign-in story (which agents need auth, which commands to run). This is rich behavior well beyond the annotation surface.

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?

Information-dense and mostly earning its length, but delivered as one enormous semicolon-chained sentence with nested parentheticals, which hurts scanability. The usage trigger is front-loaded, and little could be cut without losing the auth and expiry semantics.

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 return-value burden and does so: readiness state, the returned download command in both bash and PowerShell, and where files go next in App Store Connect or the Play Console. Auth requirements and link expiry are covered, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that passing handle removes the sign-in requirement for conversation-created assets, and ties export_id to the 24-hour link lifetime. That conditional-auth behavior is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 states a specific function: it reports whether export files are ready and, if so, returns them alongside a download command plus next-step destinations. However, it opens with sequencing advice ("Use this after export_asset") rather than a clean statement of purpose, so the agent must infer the core function from the second clause. It does distinguish itself from export_asset by naming it and describing the follow-on role.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: after export_asset, once the user has the editor open. It also handles the conditional case for the handle parameter (pass it for in-conversation exports) versus the sign-in path, and instructs running the command from the latest call. The alternative is named directly, leaving nothing to inference.

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