asc__profile_unknown

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

readOnlyHint=true is already supplied, and the description is consistent with a safe read. It adds some behavioral context beyond the annotations — namely that the server has no other tools and that the response includes configuration profiles plus a remediation instruction, which matters for how the agent should act on the output. It does not describe the response shape or any failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, so it is not bloated, but the ordering buries the actionable instruction last and the clause 'which Heimdall no longer serves' is internal jargon that does not help an agent decide anything. The first two sentences could be compressed into one context statement.

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 only vaguely gestures at 'the current profiles and the fix.' For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool that is likely sufficient to act, but an agent still cannot anticipate what fields come back or how to present the fix to the user.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing.

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 conveys that this is a fallback/diagnostic tool for a server with no App Store Connect profile, and that it returns 'the current profiles and the fix.' But the framing is muddled: it simultaneously asserts there is no profile and no other tools while offering this tool for 'current profiles.' An agent can guess the intent (report configuration state + remediation) but not with confidence.

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?

There is an explicit call instruction: 'Call this for the current profiles and the fix to tell the user about.' That establishes when to invoke it and what to do with the result. However, there are no siblings and no stated alternative or exclusion, and the phrasing is indirect rather than a clear trigger condition.

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