play_track_status

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the call opens an edit and discards it without committing, so it is safe and side-effect free. Remaining gaps (what error surfaces when the service account lacks access, any rate limits) keep it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by a tightly scoped note on side effects and a secondary use case. No filler, though the em-dash aside could be trimmed.

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 the description need not explain return values, and for a one-parameter listing tool it covers purpose, safety profile, and a use case. The one real omission is the meaning/format of package_name.

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 single parameter (package_name) is never mentioned or explained. The phrase "the app's" only loosely implies this parameter's role, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented 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 and resource: list the app's Play tracks and the active releases on each. That is unambiguous, but it never positions itself against the nearby siblings (play_submission_status, play_content_status), so an agent must infer which status tool it wants.

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?

It supplies a clear context for use — read-only introspection of tracks/releases — plus a secondary explicit use case: verifying that the service account has access to the app. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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