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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "GET" weakly implies a read, but nothing is said about authentication requirements (the sibling set includes login/session_status and ASC API key tools), pagination, or whether an empty result is possible.

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 line is front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy. There is no wasted word, but there is also almost no content.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented primary parameter, the description should explain what is returned (version list, versions with state/build info) and any auth context. For a tool in a large ASC workflow set, this is a significant omission.

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 50%: notification_message is documented in the schema, but asc_app_id is a bare string with no format, source, or expected value guidance. The description merely restates asc_app_id without adding any semantic detail, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"GET iOS appStoreVersions for asc_app_id" names a resource and a scope, but the plural "appStoreVersions" conflicts with the singular tool name, leaving ambiguous whether it returns one version or a list. It is also not differentiated from nearby read tools such as get_app, get_build, or get_review_submission.

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_app, get_pre_submit_status, or the list_* tools, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name alone.

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