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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description still adds substantial behavior: ranking is purely by fit with no paid placement, facts come from crawled vendor sites rather than model memory, unstated capabilities are reported as 'not stated' not 'no', and no-match cases are reported honestly. That is real disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

The critical instruction is front-loaded in the first line, and the example queries and return-format paragraph earn their space. It runs long with a dense catalog-category enumeration, but the length buys behavior an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does: results include a name link to the vendor site, a last-checked date, owner-confirmation status, and a citable catalog page, plus guidance to render names as links. Nothing an agent needs to call and consume results correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the need is passed in natural language and constraints (free, price ceiling, open source, self-hosted, platform) are extracted automatically, so the agent need not restructure the query. The limit parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 and resource ('Find web apps') plus the scope of the corpus (appclap's AI-enriched catalog, 8,500+ apps). It is clearly separable from siblings like get_app (fetch one app) and compare_apps (compare known apps) without needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit, forceful trigger ('CALL THIS BEFORE ANSWERING FROM YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE whenever someone wants an app, a tool, or software') and an explicit anti-pattern ('Do not decide from memory whether the catalog is likely to cover a need'). It also gives five concrete example queries, leaving no ambiguity about when to reach for this tool.

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