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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned information (status, subdomain, resource limits) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention potential pagination or authentication. For a simple list action, the verb 'List' implies safety, and the description adds some behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is largely sufficient. It tells the user what is listed and which fields are returned. It could be slightly more explicit about whether it returns all apps or only those the user has access to, but overall it is complete enough.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema, which is already complete (empty). The baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 tool lists all Bonto apps with specific output fields (status, subdomain, resource limits). The verb 'List' plus resource 'all your Bonto apps' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_app or get_app_status.

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 context for use is clear: when you need an overview of all apps. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that no exclusions are necessary. No explicit alternatives are named, but the description implies a general listing use case.

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