Store sends of a build (TestFlight, Google Play)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description repeats 'Read only', which is redundant but harmless. It does add real context beyond the annotations: the plan gating ('Pro and Team') and the full enumeration of possible send states (queued, sending, processing at Apple, sent, draft on Play production, failed), which tells the agent what conditions it may encounter. Still no mention of permissions needed for the query itself or behavior when no sends exist.

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 core answer is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a long run-on that stacks eligibility, reason, target app, history, statuses, and store answer into one breath. The status parenthetical is justified because no output schema exists, yet the phrasing could be broken into discrete clauses without losing content.

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 return values and does so thoroughly: eligibility verdict plus reason, destination store app, and a per-send record with status and store answer. Only edge-case behavior (no prior sends, in-flight states) is left unstated.

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 single parameter is 100% documented in the schema, including that it accepts a build id or the slug of its install link. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given full schema coverage and matches the baseline of 3.

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 precise verb-and-resource: it reports whether a build is eligible to be sent to TestFlight or a Google Play track, why not, the target store app, and the full send history with per-send status. It is clearly separated from a send/upload action by the explicit statement that sending 'is done by an Admin in the dashboard or with the CLI (appforshare store-upload), never from here.'

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 the when-not condition crisply (this tool never performs a send) and points to the actual send paths (dashboard, CLI). What is missing is an explicit positive trigger phrase such as 'use this to check send eligibility or audit prior sends' and any reference to sibling status tools like release_status, so the agent must infer the positive case.

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