What publishing changes

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the external network read and, crucially, a degradation path — source is "console (fresh read) or stored (no console answered)" — so the agent knows results may be stale. It also sketches the return shape (from→to, isNew, unchanged), though it does not mention latency or per-language failure modes.

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?

The ordering constraint is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent clause carries real information (change format, isNew, unchanged, source). The single run-on sentence is dense but not 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics — and it does, enumerating the per-language change records, the isNew flag, the unchanged set, and the source discriminator. Combined with read-only annotations and a fully documented single parameter, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single projectId parameter already carries its own description pointing at get_overview. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource — reads the live listing from App Store Connect / Play Console and reports each field that publish_listing would change — and explicitly anchors itself relative to the publish_listing sibling. An agent can distinguish it from get_overview or publish_listing without opening a schema.

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?

"Before publish_listing" plus "Tell the owner what changes before publishing" gives an unambiguous trigger condition and names the sibling it precedes. No explicit when-not-to-use case, but the sequencing constraint is clear enough to route correctly.

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