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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and side-effect profile. Description adds that it provides 'status and available artifacts' but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the OR condition is mutually exclusive. Nothing contradicts 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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: the OR condition and example are necessary for correct invocation.

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 read-only listing tool with all optional params and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirement (appId vs appFullName). It could mention that status is filterable and that limit applies, but the schema enums already handle that. Slightly incomplete for a tool that is one of many build-related siblings, but adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description carries the burden. It explains the meanings of appId and appFullName (with source and example), and implies limit/status/platform by the context of listing builds, though it doesn't detail them. This compensates better than baseline 3.

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 clearly states it 'Lists EAS builds for a project' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like expo_build_info (singular build) and expo_build_logs (logs) by focusing on listing builds with status and artifacts.

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 instructs how to identify the project: provide either appId OR appFullName, with a concrete example format. It implies when to use (to see recent builds) and differentiates from other build-related tools by listing what it returns.

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