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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful constraints (finished build, distribution type) and app identity prerequisites, but does not disclose side effects like triggering a store review, potential irreversible submission, or authentication requirements. This adds some value beyond annotations, so a 3 is warranted.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes essential prerequisites and a choice of parameters without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes value.

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 6-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, prerequisite build state, and app identity selection. But it omits meaningful semantics for optional parameters (track, ascAppIdentifier) and does not indicate what the response might contain or whether submission is asynchronous. These are clear gaps for a submission tool, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains appId ('from app.json extra.eas.projectId') and appFullName ('@owner/my-app') and implies platform via the enum. However, buildId, track, and ascAppIdentifier are not explicitly described, leaving partial ambiguity. This is a minimum-viable compensation, hence a 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 the action ('Submits an EAS build to the app store') and specifies the platforms (Google Play, App Store). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like expo_build_run, expo_build_cancel, and expo_build_info by focusing on the submission step.

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 for when to use: requires a 'finished build with the appropriate distribution type', implying it should be used after expo_build_run or similar. It also clarifies the app identification options, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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