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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only behavior, result volume, pagination, or whether an empty result is an error. Most notably it never explains the odd notification_message parameter, which implies a follow-up reply mechanism the description does not describe.

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 no waste and the resource front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but it is not padded or buried.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what a hit looks like, whether the query is optional (required is empty), and what the notification_message is for. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to predict call behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify the non-obvious notification_message parameter or how app_search_query matching works (substring, exact, empty = list all?).

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 verb+resource ('Search ... apps') is identifiable, but 'promotable apps' and '(CM API)' are unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot tell what domain this searches or whether results are the promoted-app catalog. Nothing distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools such as get_filter_sets or list_campaigns.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. the 25 sibling tools, no prerequisites, no indication of whether the search is mandatory before a promotion flow. The parenthetical '(CM API)' is the only context and it does not route the agent anywhere.

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