check_release_readiness

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

Given the inert annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable limitations: it states what evidence is used ('bounded App Store Connect evidence') and clearly warns that manual obligations remain and that passing does not guarantee review acceptance. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences do meaningful work: front-loading the action and scopes, then clarifying the limits of the result. No redundant 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?

The description conveys the purpose, scope, evidence source, and limitations, but with no output schema and no parameter explanations, an agent still lacks details on what the check outputs and how to set each argument. It is better than many tools, but not entirely complete for a 4-param check.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only says 'one specific existing build' and 'those', but it does not define root, platform, version, or buildId beyond the schema's field names. The agent cannot infer how to map arguments to correct values.

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 clearly states the tool checks an existing build and release, using specific verb 'check' and a concrete resource. It differentiates itself by focus on 'release readiness' with 'bounded App Store Connect evidence', but doesn't explicitly contrast with get_app_store_state or validate_repository siblings.

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?

The description implies its position in a workflow (a pre-submission readiness check) through the 'cannot guarantee Apple review acceptance' caveat, but it never explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention alternatives or ordering.

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