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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely extra facts — the app-only scope and the _meta fallback scenario — but says nothing about what is returned or what happens when the session/query has no saved result.

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 short sentence with the key qualifier ('App only') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the density of unexplained jargon ('_meta') costs a bit of readability.

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 read tool with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent without the information needed to call it confidently — neither the parameter meanings nor the shape of the returned result are conveyed. The annotations cover safety only.

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 0%, and both required parameters (session_id, query_id) plus the optional market are never mentioned in the description. The one hint ('a result's _meta') does not explain the meaning, format, or relationship of any parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a noun phrase that essentially restates the name and title ('a saved screen result in the account') rather than stating a verb or the action the tool performs. An agent cannot tell from this whether it fetches, renders, or registers a result, and the '_meta' clause is unexplained jargon.

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?

There is a conditional cue ('for hosts that don't pass a result's _meta to the app'), which is a faint when-to-use signal, but it is cryptic and never names an alternative among the many siblings (market_query, qanvo_app_share, etc.). No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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