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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real value on top: it explicitly says the tool 'reads and writes nothing itself,' pre-empting confusion about the pull/push-to-App-Store-Connect commands it merely names. It clarifies that any side effects happen via user-run CLI, not through this tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary return content, followed by the referenced commands and the no-side-effects caveat. Dense but each sentence carries information; no 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 or parameters, so the description must characterize the returned content, which it does concretely (config file, screenshot folders, field limits, device sizes). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter surface to document. Schema coverage is 100% and nothing is required, so no compensating detail is needed.

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 (returns) and resource (how an App Store listing lives as files: store.config.json text, per-language/device screenshot folders, field limits, screenshot sizes). The content is distinctive enough that an agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like get-swiftui-guide or get-widget-guide, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

The description explains what the guide contains but never states when to consult it versus the many other get-*-guide siblings. Mentioning the `npx better-design listing` commands is descriptive content, not a usage condition or alternative-selection rule.

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