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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive, non-open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the result (name, type, status), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not mention volume, pagination, or permission scoping.

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 short sentences, the inventory scope front-loaded and the routing hint second. Nothing is repeated from the title or wasted.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the one thing missing from structured data: what the listing contains. Only the absence of any note on how many apps come back or whether extra filtering exists keeps it short of full completeness.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the description is not required to add parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 states the resource ('the apps connected to your organisation that you can use') and the returned fields, which pins down the tool as a connected-apps inventory. It is distinguishable from ask_zenning, but it never contrasts with the sibling find_apps, leaving one plausible confusable sibling unaddressed.

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 explicitly routes acting-in-an-app work to ask_zenning, giving a clear when-not condition. It stops short of saying when to use this versus find_apps, so the browsing-vs-discovering choice is left to inference.

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