asc_preflight_version

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

The readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations already signal a read-only external-facing check; the description goes further by disclosing the specific states inspected and the outcome format (GO or NO-GO, with each gap naming a fixing operation). It reveals the tool can catch ambiguous states like PROCESSING builds or WAITITNG_FOR_EXPORT_COMPLIANCE, so there are no surprises in behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines scope and output, the second illustrates the hidden states it catches. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema. The key question is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's multi-dimensional check and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the return type, the categories evaluated, and the action-oriented gap reporting. An agent can decide when to call it and what to expect without further documentation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage: app is a Bundle ID/store name/numeric Apple ID, version is an optional version string. The description does not add anything about parameter formats or defaults beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Answer... can this version actually be submitted?') and a clear resource ('a version'). It enumerates the dimensions checked (build state, export compliance, localisations, screenshots, review contact details, open submission), which differentiates it from sibling status or write tools. The GO/NO-GO return is explicit.

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?

It establishes a clear use case: determine submission readiness before release. It implies this is a diagnostic to run before acting, and notes it catches non-obvious blocking states, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. Context is clear enough, though exclusions and sibling routing are left to the agent.

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