asc_check_submission

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists what the tool checks (demo credentials, review notes, screenshots), implying a read-only behavior. It does not specify side effects or permissions, but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds essential information: what is checked, why it matters, and how it relates to a sibling tool. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, specific checks, related sibling, and a concrete use case (avoiding Guideline 2.1 rejection). No missing information.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds value by specifying that the 'appId' comes from 'asc_list_apps', providing context beyond the schema description.

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 clearly states the tool checks App Store Connect readiness for submission, listing three specific items (demo credentials, review notes, screenshot sets). It uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'preflight'.

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 description provides context on when to use (before submission to avoid rejection) and explicitly names an alternative ('preflight'), clarifying that preflight only checks the binary. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements.

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