Release status

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 real value beyond that by disclosing the payload: version codes, status, rollout percentage, halted flag, and the highest version code per track — behavior that would otherwise require opening an output schema, which does not exist here.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the scoping promise ('One call, every track') followed by the returned fields. Every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape an agent needs. Minor gaps remain: no mention of ordering, empty-track handling, or how the highest-version-code aggregate relates to the per-track entries.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents package_name and its PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE default. The description adds no syntax or scope detail about the package input, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (release status per track) and a clear scope ('every track', 'one call'), which distinguishes it from per-track siblings like get_track and list_releases. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the aggregate framing makes the difference inferable.

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?

'One call, every track' hints at a shortcut over iterating get_track across tracks, which is implied usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative, so it stays at the minimum viable level.

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