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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the return shape (per-Kit in place / missing-with-consequence / not-visible), explicitly bounds what the scanner will not assert ('cannot see and will not claim about'), and states what the tool refuses to promise (store acceptance, signing keys). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Usage is front-loaded in the first sentence and the key disclaimer about not promising store acceptance lands near the end where it matters. It runs long across several clauses, but each sentence carries a distinct idea (how to gather inputs, what is returned, what is disclaimed) rather than padding.

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 steps in to describe the return payload (per-Kit status and consequences), which is the main thing an agent needs. For a 10-parameter tool, two parameters (kits, intent) are left with no guidance in either schema or description, a minor gap but not a blocking one.

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 60%, and the description largely restates the same fields the schema already documents (runtime, ios, android, Info.plist keys, manifest, entitlements, min SDK) rather than adding syntax or format meaning. The one genuine addition is the instruction to inspect the project before sending, but 'kits' and 'intent' remain unexplained in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the lifting.

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: inspect a project's native configuration (runtime, ios/android checked-in, Info.plist keys, AndroidManifest permissions, entitlements, min SDK) and report per Native Kit what is in place vs missing. It is distinguishable from siblings like trustycap_get_native_kit, though it never names which sibling to use instead. The purpose is clear but buried behind the usage sentence.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when your human wants their application in the App Store or Google Play') and an explicit when-not ('if their creation platform submits to the stores itself, it says so and offers nothing'). It does not name the closest alternative, trustycap_production_readiness, leaving the boundary between the two readiness tools to inference.

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