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

The description specifies crucial behavioral constraints related to the nomination quality, such as using 'plain' language and avoiding 'no superlatives.' This is vital behavioral context that goes beyond the formal schema structure. Since the annotations provide safety context, the description adds high-value operational context.

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?

The description is somewhat lengthy and contains conversational filler ('The founder submits it', 'Growth. Free'). While the information is well-organized, it is not maximally concise.

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?

Given that this is a complex creation tool with low schema coverage, the description is highly complete. It successfully frames the 'why' and 'how' of the nomination process, which is necessary for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage at only 40%, the description helps by defining the semantic goal of the 'description' field—it must explain what is new, for whom, and why it matters. This provides useful semantic guidance but does not detail the purpose of all 10 parameters.

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?

The description clearly defines the action (draft a featuring nomination) within a specific system (App Store Connect). It distinguishes this from other app-related tools by focusing on the editorial nomination process rather than listing or metadata updates.

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?

It provides clear usage contexts—for a launch, an update, or new content—and gives critical practical advice regarding timing ('Give them weeks of notice'). While it doesn't explicitly compare itself to every single sibling tool, its context is very specific.

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