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 and external-data exposure are covered. The description adds useful scope detail by naming the three data groups included and signaling that builds are limited ('most recent'), but it says nothing about how many builds/versions are returned, whether version data is truncated, or what happens for an app with no releases.

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 tightly-packed sentence with the aggregate scope front-loaded and the three result groups enumerated in order. No filler, no restatement of the tool 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents what comes back (details, versions with review/release and phased-release progress, recent builds with processing state), which is the critical information for an agent deciding whether one call suffices. The only meaningful omission is any guidance on the required appId parameter.

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?

There is one required parameter (appId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. The description never mentions appId at all — no format, no source, no id-type distinction (numeric App Store ID vs. resource id). This is a real gap for a required parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('one-call status') and resource (an app) and enumerates exactly which sub-resources are returned: app details, latest versions with review/release/phased-release state, and recent builds with processing state. This clearly distinguishes it from single-resource siblings like asc_list_builds or asc_list_app_info, though it never names those siblings 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 aggregation use case, so an agent can infer it should be preferred over several individual list calls. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of alternatives like asc_list_app_info or asc_list_builds, and no exclusion for when a targeted list is better.

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