List App Store versions

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

Annotations already cover the safety and idempotency profile, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant, but the description earns credit by disclosing ordering ('newest first') and the shape of returned records (platform, state with enumerated lifecycle values, release type) despite there being no output schema. It stops short of describing truncation or how the limit interacts with ordering across pages.

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 front-loaded sentence plus a brief safety prefix; nothing is padded. The leading 'Read-only.' duplicates readOnlyHint from the annotations, which is the only wasted wording.

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 simple read-only list tool with only three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: what is returned, in what order, and which fields matter. Adding more would tip into redundancy with the schema and annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents app, limit, and platform, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. The mention of platform and state refers to returned data rather than filter semantics, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists an app's App Store versions') and adds scope details (per-app, newest first). It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling, list_builds, so an agent must infer that builds and App Store versions are different objects, but the resource naming makes the distinction reasonably discoverable.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating an app's App Store version records, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer list_builds or get_app, and no prerequisites such as needing the app to exist in App Store Connect.

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