App overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the composite return payload (versions with review/release state, builds with processing state), which matters because no output schema exists. It omits freshness/rate-limit or auth context, so it is not a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs the aggregate scope into a compact colon-list with zero filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does a decent job describing what comes back, which is the main need. However, the only input parameter is left completely ambiguous and there is no indication of scope limits (how many versions/builds) or behavior when the app has no recent builds, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0% and the sole parameter appId is undocumented in both schema and description; 'of an app' only weakly implies what appId is. The agent gets no guidance on whether appId is a numeric App Store Connect ID, a bundle ID, or something else, which is a real invocation risk.

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 ('One-call status of an app') and enumerates exactly what is bundled: app details, latest App Store versions with review/release state, and recent builds with processing state. That scope implicitly separates it from single-purpose siblings like asc_list_apps or asc_list_builds, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'One-call status' implies the intended use case (a single snapshot instead of several list calls), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many asc_list_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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