get_app_store_version_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that sub-resources that do not exist yet come back as null, preventing the agent from assuming every field is populated. It also clarifies that this is an aggregated read without claiming any side effects.

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 definition is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists concrete delivered fields, and closes with the important null behavior. Every clause contributes value and there is no repetition or padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by naming the returned version state, build, submission, phased release, and review details. The null-behavior note further boundaries could be argued for a formal response shape, but for a one-parameter getter this is very close to complete.

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?

The only parameter, version_id, is fully documented in the input schema, including where to obtain it, so the schema already gives the agent everything needed. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Get the full release status of an App Store version'. It then names the exact sub-resources included, which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishes it from the many list/get siblings.

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 phrase 'in one call' and the enumerated return fields make it clear this is the right tool when an agent needs the aggregate release status of a single App Store version. It does not explicitly name an alternative or give a when-not-to-use condition, so it just misses the top score.

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