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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering ('newest first'), the specific return fields, and the special case of 'installable:false' releases. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if there are side effects, or any auth/rate-limit constraints, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 concise at three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second lists return fields, and the third covers a special case and prerequisite. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields and explains the 'installable:false' nuance. It also mentions the prerequisite tool. However, it does not address pagination despite the 'limit' parameter, and the lack of behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature) slightly reduces completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only gives a usage hint for the two required parameters. The schema itself already provides clear descriptions and examples for each parameter.

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 states the action ('List recent builds'), resource ('releases for one Firebase app'), ordering ('newest first'), and specifies what is returned. It distinguishes by mentioning a prerequisite sibling tool (firebase_list_apps) for obtaining required parameters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit context for when to use this tool (listing releases for a Firebase app) and includes a prerequisite hint ('Use firebase_list_apps to get appId and projectNumber'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives (e.g., firebase_install_release for installation), though the context is clear enough.

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