Build details and store readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that results are 'guidance only, not a promise of store approval' and by naming the specific rule sources (App Store, Google Play) and the Expo-only conditional behavior. It does not cover failure modes, such as an invalid or ambiguous build identifier.

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?

It is front-loaded with the scoping phrase 'One build:' and every clause conveys returned content or a caveat rather than filler. The enumeration is dense and would read better as a bulleted list, but no sentence is wasted.

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, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly by listing every section of the response, including the conditional Expo-only parts and the caveat framing. Only the identifier-resolution behavior and error cases are left unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Build id or the slug of its install link', which already conveys the accepted identifier forms. The description adds nothing further about parameter formatting, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource scope (a single build) and enumerates exactly what it returns: install link, version, installs, release notes, store readiness findings with fixes, plus Expo facts and Expo checks. This clearly distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like list_builds or latest_build, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting one known build, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use X instead when' guidance, and no indication of what to do if the build id is unknown (e.g., whether to call latest_build or list_builds first).

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