asc_list_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully signals that this hits the live App Store Connect API (not a mock/dry run) and that an issuer_id credential must be configured first, but it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or what the LIVE designation implies for side effects.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with the resource named first and the LIVE/auth caveat second; every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a zero-parameter read tool has little else to specify. The remaining gap is the relationship to asc_get_app and how large result sets are returned.

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 the baseline is 4. The mention of issuer_id is an auth prerequisite rather than a call argument, so it does not confuse the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the apps in App Store Connect'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling asc_get_app (singular fetch) or explain what 'apps' scopes to, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(LIVE; requires issuer_id)' implies a precondition for calling it, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over asc_get_app or asc_token_check, and no statement of exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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