Audit a version before submission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent (it only says 'checks'), so no contradiction. It adds real context beyond annotations: the exact categories audited and an access constraint ('Pro feature'), which an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 tight clauses with no filler: what it does, why it matters, and the access caveat. The purpose is front-loaded in the first four words.

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 read-only, single-parameter audit tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and the Pro gating, which is enough to call it correctly. It could clarify the scope tie to a specific version, since the title mentions 'a version' but the only input is an app ID.

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?

Only one parameter (app_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it with format and pattern. The description adds nothing about the identifier, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific action (pre-submission audit) and enumerates what it inspects: metadata, character limits, screenshots, build status. It is clearly distinct from submit_for_review and review_status, though it does not name 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?

States the clear context of use: run it before submitting to catch rejection causes. No exclusions or explicit alternative routing are given, but an agent can infer the pre-submission window without ambiguity.

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