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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the sequencing prerequisite and that the scope is the current version, but says nothing about mutation semantics: whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared on update, permission/auth needs, or side effects on an in-flight submission.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action first, then the prerequisite constraint. Every clause 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?

A 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more: partial-update behavior, what happens when called twice, whether it affects an already-submitted review, and the conditional demo-account requirement are all absent. The prerequisite note helps but does not cover the gaps.

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 40% across 10 parameters. The phrase 'review contact and demo sign-in' covers the review_contact_* and demo_account_* families, but review_notes, notification_message, and asc_app_id get nothing from the description, and the conditional demo-account logic lives only in the schema.

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 pair ('Create or update') and a specific resource ('App Store review contact and demo sign-in for the current version'), plus the internal iris type. No sibling does the same thing, so the resource alone distinguishes it, though it never names an alternative 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?

'Required before press_submit_for_review for login apps' gives a clear ordering constraint and a condition for when it matters. It stops short of saying when it can be skipped or how it relates to submit_for_review / submit_build_and_press_submit, which are also in the sibling list.

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