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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds pagination behavior via continuation_token, but does not describe return shape, default page size, or other behavioral limits.

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 short and front-loads the primary purpose, with pagination guidance following naturally. The final sentence about MCP version 2.12 is somewhat redundant with the schema's mcp_version description but remains concise overall.

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 list tool with no required parameters, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It could say more about what an app record contains, but with no output schema that omission is relatively minor.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces continuation_token for pagination but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 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 gives a clear verb and resource ('list the user's apps'), which is more specific than the title alone. It does not differentiate from related siblings such as get_app_versions or get_app_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It provides pagination guidance by telling the caller to pass continuation_token for the next page, which is useful contextual usage. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against sibling tools.

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