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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. Description adds real value beyond that: ordering (newest activity first), return shape (up to limit plus total count), and permission semantics (editors edit shared source, viewers read, publishing/records/domains/security owner-only) – concrete behavioral context not in annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with resource and ordering, then paging, then permissions. Every sentence contributes; slightly dense but well-organized with no filler.

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 2-param list tool with annotations and full schema, this covers what an agent needs: what's returned, ordering, paging, and access-level implications. Return value details are largely conveyed despite no output schema. Only minor gap is explicit sibling routing.

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 limit/offset fully documented. Description reinforces paging ('page with offset') and mentions limit/total count, but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

Specific verb+resource: lists owned and accepted Studio-shared apps, with ordering ('newest activity first'). Distinguishes scope (owned + shared accepted) from siblings like get_app_detail or list_app_members.

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?

Implies this is the enumeration entry point and gives paging via offset, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs get_app_detail or when not to use it. Usage is largely inferable rather than stated.

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