Get the playbook for a release task

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing what the content contains (which steps are manual and cannot be done via API) and that it is free to call. That is real added context beyond the safety hint, though it says nothing about size or format of the returned playbook.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with 'START HERE' so the routing cue comes first. The one-word 'Free.' sentence is a fragment but carries cost information efficiently; nothing is padded.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: an end-to-end playbook with manual steps flagged by topic. It is largely complete for a simple, zero-required-parameter orientation tool, missing only detail about length or structure of the returned content.

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 enum plus 'Omit for the overview + topic list' fully document the single optional parameter. The description's 'Call with topic to orient' adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns the exact end-to-end playbook for an App Store task') and pins down the scope/content ('every manual ASC-website/Xcode step that no API can do flagged inline'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling operational tools like create_version or submit_for_review, which perform steps rather than describe them.

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?

'START HERE' and 'Call with topic to orient before any multi-step flow' give explicit when-to-use guidance, positioning it as a prerequisite/orientation tool. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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