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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses a server-side allowlist check and a confirmation gate, both non-obvious preconditions that a schema alone would hide. It stops short of describing what happens if the allowlist check fails or what the reply 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its restrictions, then routing. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 risky mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, scope and alternatives well. It omits failure behavior and leaves one parameter unexplained, and its confirm-flag name is inconsistent with the schema.

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 25%, so the description should compensate, and it partially does by explaining the confirm gate and the app scoping. However, it names the flag confirm_probe_submit while the actual parameter is confirm_submit_for_review, a mismatch that could mislead, and app_store_version_id is undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Press Submit for Review') plus two hard scoping conditions (probe/disposable allowlist, confirm flag). This separates it from press_submit_for_review and submit_build_and_press_submit, which are named explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('automated testing against throwaway apps') and a when-not-to-use with two named alternatives for regular apps. Nothing is left to inference about routing.

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