play_submission_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose that this is a read of the 'Publishing overview' page (hence non-mutating) and that the terminology is ambiguous, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or what happens if the package is unknown.

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?

Front-loaded with the answer 'what does this report', followed by a short disambiguation of the two confusing status strings. Two tight paragraphs, no filler; the quoted phrasing earns its place by mapping UI text to state meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: what 'in review' vs 'waiting to be sent' actually mean. Only the undocumented package_name parameter keeps this from being complete.

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 0% and the description never mentions package_name or what form it takes (bundle ID, app ID, etc.). For a single required identifier this is a real gap the description should have filled.

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 reporting verb and the resource (pending submission state) and enumerates the three possible outcomes, so an agent knows exactly what question this tool answers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours like play_content_status or play_track_status, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (check whether changes are waiting, in review, or done), but there is no explicit 'call this when X, use play_content_status when Y' guidance despite several overlapping siblings. The state disambiguation helps interpretation rather than selection.

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