Get release state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: it explains temporary edits for Play tracks (with cleanup) and that nothing is committed, plus the normalization of states and rawState field. This goes beyond the annotations and adds genuinely useful behavioral detail.

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?

The description is three sentences, each contributing a distinct piece of information: what it returns, the state vocabulary and rawState, and the temporary-edit behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though it could be tightened slightly by merging the state list with the second sentence.

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 tool with two optional well-documented parameters and an output schema (as indicated by the context), the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: state normalization, rawState, temporary Play edits, and the read-only guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema (appId's format and omission semantics, store's enum and default). The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific action (getting release state) with a clear resource (releases) and scope (one app or portfolio). It enumerates the normalized states, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reviews or stores_health. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly explains what the tool does and that it can be scoped to a single app or all apps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context (release states vs reviews vs health) makes the appropriate use case clear. No misleading guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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