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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior not in annotations: results are newest-first, and payloads include largest size and part size relevant to uploads. It stops short of pagination or truncation behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the artifact types and ordering packed into parentheticals. It is efficient, though the sentence is a noun fragment lacking an explicit verb, which slightly reduces immediate readability.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, ordering, and a hint of returned fields (sizes, part sizes). Only pagination/empty-result behavior is left unstated, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents projectId as a p_… project id. The description only says builds are scoped to a project, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema — the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific resource — app builds uploaded to a project — and adds concrete detail about artifacts (.apk, zipped Simulator .app) and ordering (newest first). It implicitly separates itself from get_build/find_build by describing a collection listing, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_build or find_build, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. A reader infers 'use this to enumerate builds' from the noun phrase alone, which is minimal.

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