[Read] Check App Review readiness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It declares 'Read-only' upfront, explains that each check reports pass/fail/warning/manual_required, defines the `ready` flag semantics, and highlights limitations like export compliance being 'if detectable' and privacy questionnaire being always manual. This is exemplary transparency.

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 dense sentence that front-loads 'Read-only' and the core purpose before listing checked areas. The list is long but logically organized and every clause adds information. It is slightly verbose due to the comprehensive list, but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (pass/fail/warning/manual_required per check and the aggregate `ready` flag) and covers key edge cases (detectable export compliance, manual privacy questionnaire). This gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool and interpret results without needing a schema.

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?

All three parameters (appId, version, locale) already have descriptive schema entries, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the check operates on app/version/build and mentions locale-specific items like metadata and screenshots, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Runs a comprehensive readiness check before submitting a version for App Review' and enumerates the exact domains checked. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform individual lookups or updates, making the aggregate preflight purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before submitting a version for App Review.' It also warns that the App Privacy questionnaire is 'always manual_required — no public API,' implying the agent cannot automate that step. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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