Check build processing status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by enumerating the processingState values (PROCESSING/VALID/INVALID/FAILED) and noting it also returns expiry, export-compliance, and sibling builds for the version, which goes beyond the structured fields.

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 core purpose and routing, and the example questions are short and genuinely useful for intent matching. Slightly dense with the routing sentence plus return-value enumeration, but no sentence is wasted.

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 lookup with 3 well-documented params, full annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, triggers, result fields, and alternatives. Any return-format detail is already handled by the output schema.

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 100%, so app_id, version, and build_number are already documented with patterns and examples in the schema. The description only gestures at version/build semantics through its example questions and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (check) and resource (build processing status) and immediately qualifies the outcome as VALID/attachable for a marketing version. It is clearly distinguishable from check_version_state and preflight_submission, which are named as different concerns.

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?

Gives concrete user-question triggers ('is build 3 of 2.88 done processing?', 'did my upload go through?') plus explicit routing: use check_version_state for App Review status, and preflight_submission when the real goal is submission readiness. Both the when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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