Preflight an App Review submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it returns 'pass/fail/warn per check with a concrete fix,' it is self-contained (subsumes build processing and version state checks), and it 'never submits.' It does not discuss latency, auth, or failure modes, keeping it just short of 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-loaded with purpose and the self-contained/call-first guidance, then a scannable semicolon-delimited check list, then concrete usage examples. The check enumeration is long but each entry carries a distinct gate, so it earns its space; only minor trimming is possible.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still conveys the return shape (pass/fail/warn per check plus fix). Combined with 100% parameter coverage and rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully connects checks to parameters it does not otherwise name: the local build-number check tied to AppVersion.xcconfig, the release commit ancestor check, and the IAP attachment check. This adds mapping context beyond the schema's own field docs.

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 ('Run the full go/no-go checklist before submitting') and resource ('a version to App Review'), and enumerates exactly what it checks. An agent can immediately distinguish it from check_build_status, check_version_state, and submit_for_review because it explicitly claims to encompass the first two and precede the last.

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?

Explicit routing: 'call it first and alone for readiness questions and before any submit,' plus concrete invocation phrasings ('is 2.88 ready to submit?', 'preflight build 4', 'what's blocking the release?'). It tells the agent both when to use it and when the sibling checks are unnecessary.

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