Check App Store version state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it resolves the ambiguity of an omitted version (newest) and discloses the return contents (attached build, open review submissions). It restates 'Read-only', which is redundant with the annotation, keeping 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?

Front-loads the lifecycle-state enumeration, then examples, then defaults, then sibling routing — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is on the long side for two parameters, and 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 values need not be explained further; parameters are fully documented in the schema; and sibling routing is explicit. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, with both parameters already documented including the omit-to-use-default behavior and the app_id format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Omit version for the newest version' mirrors rather than extends the schema text. 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+resource ('Report where an App Store version is in its lifecycle') and enumerates the exact states returned (PREPARE_FOR_SUBMISSION, READY_FOR_SALE, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings check_build_status and preflight_submission, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 trigger phrasings ('is 2.88 approved yet?', 'what's live right now?', 'is anything in review?') and routes competing intents away: build processing to check_build_status, readiness/blockers to preflight_submission. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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