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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the auth dependency (ASC key), that the call is a read, that it returns both the in-preparation and live versions, and that it is free. It omits failure modes when the key is absent (beyond the fallback) or any rate/return-shape notes, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then the dependency and the fallback; two dense sentences with no filler. The parentheticals are compact, though the sentence is fairly packed.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the return content (per-locale fields, both version states), and it covers the auth prerequisite. The only real gap is the undocumented appId parameter, which is minor for a one-param 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?

The single parameter appId has 0% schema coverage and is never mentioned or explained in the description. It is nearly self-evident, but the description makes no attempt to compensate for the empty schema, and it never states whether appId is required or what happens if omitted (required is technically 0).

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 ('read') plus resource (App Store Connect metadata), and it enumerates the fields returned (name, subtitle, keywords, promotional text, description, what's new) across every locale and both version states. It also names the sibling it is not (app_audit), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit prerequisite (founder's App Store Connect key connected on the results app page) and an explicit fallback with the alternative named ('without it, use app_audit with the repo's fastlane metadata'). The when-to-use/when-not-to-use decision is fully specified.

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