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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does convey that results are team-scoped and come from the Apple developer portal. It says nothing about authentication/login prerequisites, pagination, or the shape of the result set, which matters for a zero-annotation 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the routing advice second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and why, but leaves out prerequisites (login/team membership) and any indication of result volume or filtering. Adequate but with clear gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains notification_message fully. The description adds no parameter meaning, but per the coverage rule the baseline of 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List bundle IDs registered on developer.apple.com for the current team') with scope explicitly tied to the current team. The sibling set contains create_bundle_id, get_bundle_id and delete_bundle_id, and the description makes the list-vs-create-vs-get distinction obvious.

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?

Explicitly states the workflow context: use it to find an existing bundle_id before calling create_bundle_id or get_bundle_id, which is a genuine when-to-use signal. It does not, however, say when NOT to use it (e.g. when the identifier is already known, or how list_app_bundles differs).

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