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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the returned fields (live version, status, error, partnerCenterUrl) and decoding certification.waitingForYou, adding genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 purpose in a short clause, then addresses parameter selection, then return content. It is slightly dense in the final certification sentence but every sentence contributes; nothing is 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden, describing status values, error, and certification fields. Combined with 100% param coverage and safety annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though the shape of the returned object is only prose-described.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that the two params are alternate selectors (appId for latest vs releaseId for a specific update), information the schema descriptions alone do not convey.

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 resource and operation (the state of an update), and enumerates the exact status values it reports. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like start_update, submit_update, and discard_update, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 explains the selection logic: pass appId for the app's latest update or releaseId for one specific update, which effectively tells the agent when to use which. It stops short of naming sibling tools or stating exclusions, so it earns a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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