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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful field-level context by saying file keys and provider logs are omitted, but it does not describe auth needs, pagination behavior, or response shape.

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 short sentences, front-loads the primary action and returned data, and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the second sentence is the only place it adds value beyond the title.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain return values. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the required appId scope and cursor pagination, and it does not; an agent is left to infer those from parameter names alone.

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%, and the description never mentions either parameter. It does not explain that appId scopes the list to an app or that cursor is used for pagination, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb, "Read," and names the resources: uploaded binary metadata, Apple worker progress, and linked release IDs. It aligns with the title "List uploaded builds," but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling listers such as list_releases or list_assets.

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 implies that this is for listing uploaded builds, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives. It also does not mention pagination or any prerequisite beyond what the schema requires.

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