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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "check" weakly implies a read-only probe, but the description never states side effects, whether it may trigger a browser auth flow, what failure modes exist, or what the response contains.

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?

Short but under-specified rather than efficient — three words that convey almost no actionable information. Brevity here costs the agent the context it needs and there is no front-loaded statement of purpose to build on.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and a description that says nothing about the return value or the state being checked. For a status-check tool, the outcome shape (valid/expired/unauthenticated) is the single most important thing and it is absent.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents notification_message, so the description is not required to compensate. The description adds nothing about when the follow-up reply fallback applies, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"ASC session check" essentially restates the tool name and title; it does add the expansion of ASC to App Store Connect, but never says what the check verifies (token validity, expiry, authenticated user) or what a caller learns from it. It does not distinguish itself from login or start_browser_auth, which also concern session/auth state.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. Given siblings like login, start_browser_auth, and probe_update_version_localization, an agent has to guess whether this is a pre-flight validation step, a re-authentication trigger, or a health check.

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