App Store and Google Play release status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's "Read only" adds nothing. The genuinely additive parts are the plan gating ("Pro and Team") and the enumeration of what data is aggregated across two external services, but it stays silent on freshness/latency, pagination, and the meaning of the vague "recent changes".

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the resource and its contents come first, with access constraints trailing. The only wasted clause is "Read only.", which merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the four data groups covered. What is missing is minor but real: result volume/limits and whether unfiltered calls return all shared apps, which matters for a zero-required-parameter, open-world tool.

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% for the single optional `app` parameter, so the schema already explains that bundle id, package name, or app name narrows results. The description adds no matching or partial-match semantics beyond that, 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 names a specific resource (release status) and enumerates the concrete contents: App Store versions and review state, TestFlight builds, Google Play tracks and rollout, plus recent changes. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as store_upload_status, release_overview, or latest_build, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the read-only roll-up for connected App Store Connect and Google Play accounts. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative for scenarios like uploading to a store or checking a single build.

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