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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: results are workspace-scoped, key material is returned masked rather than raw, and full coverage requires cursor iteration. That masking detail is meaningful context an agent cannot infer from annotations and distinguishes it from reveal_sdk_key.

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?

A single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; both clauses earn their place. The only blemish is the slight naming drift between 'nextCursor' in prose and 'cursor' in the schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies what the structured fields do not: workspace scoping, masked key state, and the cursor-following requirement, which is sufficient for an agent to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it only partially does. It explains cursor semantics (follow the nextCursor field) which is genuinely useful beyond the bare 'cursor' string, but the 'limit' parameter (1-50) is never mentioned or bounded in the description, and the description calls it 'nextCursor' while the schema param is 'cursor'.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (apps) and narrows the scope to 'the selected workspace', which cleanly separates it from get_app, create_app, delete_app, and list_reports. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, so it lands just under the top tier.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this tool when you need an inventory of apps in the current workspace. The only explicit directive is 'follow nextCursor for complete coverage', which is pagination guidance rather than a when-to-use-vs-alternatives rule. No exclusions or named alternatives are given.

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