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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the tool performs multiple state-changing operations, blocks while polling until build processing is VALID, and has a de facto default for encryption compliance. It omits what happens on timeout or a build that never reaches VALID, whether re-attaching overwrites a prior build, and what auth it needs — significant gaps for a mutating multi-step 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 that leads with the trigger condition and then walks the steps in execution order, so the agent reads the workflow in the correct sequence. Every clause carries information; the only cost is that the run-on style makes it slightly dense.

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 five-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the happy-path sequence adequately. It leaves out failure and timeout semantics, whether the call is safely retryable, what the response contains, and the role of notification_message — enough missing context that an agent could be surprised in production.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it ties asc_app_id to listing builds, build_id to attachment, and glosses uses_non_exempt_encryption as 'usually false'. It says nothing about notification_message (the odd one out among the parameters) or about what app_store_version_id represents beyond the attach target. Partial compensation justifies a 3.

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 names a specific composite action and enumerates its steps: list builds for asc_app_id, wait for VALID processing, attach build_id to app_store_version_id, and set export compliance. That is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes. It does not differentiate itself from siblings that perform the same sub-steps (set_version_build, set_export_compliance, wait_build_processed), which keeps it at a 4.

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?

The opening clause 'After Expo/CI has uploaded the .ipa to ASC' establishes the precondition for use, which is real guidance. However, it never says when an agent should pick this orchestration tool rather than calling the individual sibling tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites such as an authenticated ASC session. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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