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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a 'safe' context, it explicitly does not return secrets, and it does not extend access to other apps. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the call can and cannot do.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a necessary exclusions clause. Every sentence contributes information; there is no filler 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema) and the rich annotations, the description covers the purpose, returned content categories, and important security exclusions. A small gap remains: audit_limit behavior is not explained in either the schema or description, though the default value gives a hint. Overall, an agent can invoke this tool correctly with the provided information.

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 only 50%: app_id is minimally described as 'The app ID' and audit_limit only has a default. The description partially compensates by tying ownership to app_id ('one owned app') and indicating that audit entries are recent, which relates to the audit_limit parameter () though not explicitly named. This is helpful but not fully explicit.

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 action ('Return safe security context') and the resource ('one owned app'), and enumerates the exact contents (owner info, collaborators, policies, audit entries). It is unambiguous, but does not explicitly contrast this with sibling get_app_security_audit, so it misses the top score.

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 gives clear scope ('one owned app') and exclusions ('does not grant access to other apps'), which implies when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_app_security_audit or other security-related tools, leaving the choice mostly to inference.

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