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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real domain behavior beyond them: releases with installable:false cannot be put on a device and the reason is included. Return ordering (newest first) is also disclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool lists, then return fields, then the installable caveat, then the prerequisite lookup. No filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (release id, version, build number, binary type, date, notes) and the installable reason. Complete enough to call correctly, though no pagination or error behavior is mentioned.

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 appId, projectNumber and limit are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the limit parameter or format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('List recent builds distributed for one Firebase app') with scope ('newest first') and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from firebase_list_apps and firebase_install_release.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to firebase_list_apps to obtain the required appId and projectNumber, which is the key prerequisite. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool versus firebase_install_release, but the context is clear.

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