My application releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: pagination, preservation of unknown statuses, content scope (bounded notes and RPM metadata only), and explicitly states it does not upload/download/publish files. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes scoping details without verbosity.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, pagination, content limits, and exclusions. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. It is adequate for an agent to understand how to use the tool, though it could mention usage alternatives more explicitly.

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 only 33% – only app_id has a description. The tool description does not elaborate on page or page_size semantics, nor does it reinforce the app_id guidance. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving parameters under-documented.

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 clearly states 'Read all statuses returned by the owned app release API' – a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the statuses (draft, pending_review, rejected, published) and notes it preserves unknown ones, distinguishing it from siblings like get_app_versions or get_my_app_version.

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 implies a list operation for owned app releases, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as get_my_app_version or get_app_versions. It provides clear context (owned app releases) but no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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