app_encryption_declarations__list

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by referencing the API endpoint '[GET /v1/appEncryptionDeclarations]' and implying pagination support via the 'next_url' parameter, which is not directly declared in annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 description is two sentences long, efficient, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It conveys necessary context without fluff. Minor deduction for not being as terse as possible (e.g., the endpoint notation could be integrated more elegantly), but it remains well-structured for an agent.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, typical use case (checking coverage before shipping), filtering guidance, and the endpoint. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema, and the parameter schemas already handle most details. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that filtering by app or build helps check if a declaration covers a build, provides a real-world use case for 'filter_app' and 'filter_builds' parameters, and clarifies that you should use the Apple ID (not bundle ID) for filtering by app. This extra semantic guidance is essential for proper invocation.

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 clearly states 'List export-compliance declarations' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining its purpose: finding declarations that cover a build before shipping, which is a unique concern not shared by other sibling tools like builds__app_encryption_declaration__get or apps__app_encryption_declarations__list.

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 description says 'Filter by app or build to find whether one already covers the build you are releasing,' providing clear context for when to use it. It implicitly guides the agent to filter against an existing app or build to check coverage, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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