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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose result ordering ('newest first'), which is genuine behavioral information. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or behavior when asc_app_id is omitted (it's optional but the description implies it's the filter).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the operational hint follows immediately. No wasted clauses, though the terseness leaves gaps rather than being optimally sized.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives action, scope, ordering, and a usage trigger. The main omission is what a build entry contains (build numbers vs. IDs), which matters given the 'build number' reference.

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 50%: notification_message is documented in-schema, while asc_app_id has no schema description but is referenced in the tool description as the app filter. That partially compensates, though the description never explains what happens when asc_app_id is left empty.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List ASC builds') scoped to asc_app_id, plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). It distinguishes itself from the single-build sibling get_build, though it doesn't explicitly name it.

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?

Provides a concrete trigger: use before attaching when the operator names a build number, which points the agent toward attach_build_and_compliance as the downstream step. It lacks explicit when-not conditions, but the usage context is clear.

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