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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world, so the description's real contribution is the listing-state filter — only verified, non-expired, non-moderated apps are returned. That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not derive from annotations. It omits result ordering and pagination behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences with the capability front-loaded and the scoping constraint second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 five-parameter read-only search with no output schema and no parameter documentation anywhere, the definition is thin on paging defaults, result shape, and how the three filters combine. The exclusion rule is helpful, but an agent still has to guess at limit/offset behavior before calling.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only accounts for three of five parameters (query as 'text', category, playable as 'playable web build'). The limit and offset paging parameters, and the semantics of combining filters (AND vs OR, empty query behavior), are never mentioned.

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 (search) and resource (verified public apps and games) plus the three search dimensions: text, category, playable web build. An agent can distinguish it from get_app (single fetch) and verify_app/register_app by the 'public listing' scope, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 exclusion clause ('Pending, expired and moderated listings are excluded') implies this is the discovery tool for live public listings, but it never states when to use search_apps versus get_app or search_docs, nor what to do if no results match. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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