[Read] Get TestFlight build status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, and details what data is returned (processing state and beta review state). It doesn't mention potential errors or return format, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the essential 'Read-only' qualifier, then states the action and purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no waste or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core actions and intended use. It names the data returned (processing state and beta review state), which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it. It doesn't describe the exact return structure or possible status values, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as clarifying the format or acceptable values for appId and buildId. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and clearly identifies the resource: a build's processing state plus its internal/external TestFlight beta review state. It also states the purpose ('checking whether a build is ready to distribute to testers'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like asc_build_status or asc_submission_status that focus on different aspects.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'for checking whether a build is ready to distribute to testers.' While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is specific enough to guide an agent to select this tool over similar siblings when the goal is TestFlight beta readiness.

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