validate_app_submission

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it returns an ordered remediation plan and requires iteration, but doesn't explicitly state if it's read-only or what permissions are needed. Adequate but could be more explicit about side effects.

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 efficient sentences: purpose, what it checks and returns, and workflow instruction. No redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, return type (ordered remediation plan), and usage workflow. Complete for the complexity level.

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: app_id source (list_asc_apps) and version format example ('1.2.3'). Provides slight additional value beyond schema.

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 runs a 'preflight readiness check' for an App Store version before submission, listing specific checks and contrasting with publishing. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the iterative remediation workflow and referencing publish_to_app_store.

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 says 'Call this before publish_to_app_store with submit_for_review=true' and describes the iterative process of fixing issues and re-calling. While it doesn't list exclusions or alternatives, the context is clear.

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