asc__account_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns an aggregate across all apps, includes live and in-flight versions, and translates states into implied actions. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 tight, front-loaded, and well-structured, with the core behavior first and details following. The only minor redundancy is the final 'Read-only,' which duplicates what the annotation already states.

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?

For an account-wide read-only status tool with an output schema and a fully described optional parameter, this description is complete. An agent can correctly decide when to call it and what kind of results to expect.

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 single parameter only_actionable is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not itself explain that parameter, but given the schema covers it, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Show every app in the account') and resource (account-level status), and clearly differentiates itself from single-app tools by saying 'rather than one app.' It also explains the value-add: translating App Store states into implied actions, so an agent immediately understands what this tool returns.

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 gives a clear trigger: 'Start here when the question is "what needs my attention?" rather than one app.' This provides strong contextual guidance, though it does not name a specific alternative tool or explicitly state exclusions beyond the single-app contrast.

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