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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotent/safe profile, and the description adds value on top: it states that the package is assembled and describes the returned content (languages plus current release notes), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not disclose auth requirements or failure modes, but the added context exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loads the step position and trigger before the effect and next call, so the agent gets routing info first. The phrasing is conversational but compact, with no redundant sentences.

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 single-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers trigger, effect, and follow-up. The only real gap is what the caller should do with the returned languages/release notes, which is admittedly left to write_release_notes.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with its own description pointing to start_update. The description does not add syntax or format detail for releaseId, so it neither compensates nor detracts; the baseline 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?

Names a specific action (puts the package together) and its outcome (returns the Store listing's languages with current release notes), and positions it as 'Step 2' relative to start_update and write_release_notes. It distinguishes itself from siblings via sequencing, though 'puts the package together' remains slightly vague about the underlying operation.

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 concrete preconditions ('after upload.shell has run, or once the person says the storefast.app upload page says Done') and an explicit next step ('Then call write_release_notes'). It lacks a when-not-to-use clause, but the trigger conditions are clear enough to route correctly.

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