App Store Connect API request

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, but the description adds genuine extra context: responses are flattened (related resources become IDs) unless raw=true, and write methods mutate live App Store Connect data so the user must confirm first. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or what errors look like — minor gaps against an otherwise strong disclosure.

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?

Four short sentences, ordered by decision priority: what it is, when to prefer siblings, how to prepare a call, how responses look, then the write-safety warning. No filler and the most important caveat lands before an agent acts.

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 7-parameter open-ended proxy with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing context: the discovery workflow for unknown endpoints, the response-shaping rule, and the mutation-confirmation policy. Nothing needed to call it safely is absent.

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 86%, so path, query, body, raw, allPages and maxItems are already documented. The description's note about raw reversing the flattened response adds behavioral meaning, but allPages/maxItems and the method default go unmentioned beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Calls any App Store Connect API endpoint' — and immediately frames itself as the generic escape hatch relative to the 30+ dedicated siblings. An agent can tell instantly this is the fallback, not a competitor to list_apps or create_app_store_version.

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 preference rule ('Prefer the dedicated tools when one fits') and a concrete two-step prerequisite for the fallback path: find the endpoint with search_endpoints, then validate parameters/body with describe_endpoint. Both named alternatives exist in the sibling list, so the routing is actionable.

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