check_publish_readiness

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: API-verifiable checks run live, items without API are listed as 'human required', and each item is tagged as 'agent can fix' or 'human required'. No hidden behaviors.

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 description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, but could be condensed slightly without losing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return is a pass/fail report with action plan tags. It also references related tools (list_asc_apps). Missing exact output format but sufficient for typical use.

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% with descriptions. The description adds context (e.g., app_id from list_asc_apps, version example, language default) that goes beyond the schema, clarifying parameter usage.

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 states it aggregates publish-readiness checks for iOS or Android into a pass/fail report, distinguishing between API-verifiable and human-required items. This clearly defines the tool's specific function and differentiates it from sibling tools that may perform individual checks or actions.

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?

Explicitly advises to call before 'submit_for_app_store_review' (iOS) or promoting to production (Android), and refers to first_publish_ios/android prompts for initial setup. This provides clear when-to-use and preconditions.

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