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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces and extends this by clarifying that nothing is persisted or pushed, and that publishing is human-only. This gives the agent a confident, safe interpretation of the tool's side-effect-free behavior without contradicting 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a short, emphatic second sentence to stress the draft-only nature. It is slightly repetitive with 'DRAFT' appearing twice, but the emphasis is purposeful for preventing misuse, so it earns a strong score.

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 low-complexity tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return content and the critical non-persistence behavior. It does not explicitly state that at least one app identifier should be supplied, but the schema and open-world context make this reasonably inferable.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds the general promise that the tool works for 'any app' and includes validation, but it adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource ('a DRAFT optimized listing') and enumerates the output fields (name/subtitle/keywords/description). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from publishing by stating it does NOT push to the App Store, which separates it from any sibling publishing flow even though no sibling is named.

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?

Provides clear context: use this to generate and read a draft proposal for any app, and explicitly states it is not for persisting or publishing. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the exclusions are strong enough to guide an agent away from using it as a write operation.

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