ASC Token Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the call is live, it validates key id/issuer/.p8, and it returns auth_source/keychain_profiles diagnostics, which annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then when/not-for and returns on their own lines. The returns block enumerates fields that the output schema already covers, so a small amount of it is redundant, but the structure remains tight.

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 a parameterless diagnostic with a full output schema, the description supplies trigger, exclusion, and mechanism. An agent has everything needed to decide when to run it before the asc_* family.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the no-arg nature that the empty schema already implies.

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+resource ('Verify App Store Connect authentication through the asc CLI') with the mechanism (one live read-only call). It explicitly names the sibling it is not: listing apps (asc_list_apps).

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?

Gives an explicit 'Use when' trigger (before any asc_* tool, to confirm key id, issuer and .p8 work) and an explicit 'Not for' exclusion routing to asc_list_apps. Nothing is left to inference.

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