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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that preview_url is a private never-indexed sandbox and that public_url is null until publish, which is useful context, but most of the paragraph is return-field enumeration rather than behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single sprawling sentence with deeply nested parentheses that is hard to parse. The content is mostly valuable yet the structure buries meaning in one unpunctuated run-on.

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 must explain the return payload, and it does so thoroughly for preview_url, public_url, app_url, visibility, indexed, and next_step. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents app_id and the ownership/not-found rule. The description only restates ownership, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: it returns the openable link for an app you own plus its status. Clearly separable from siblings like get_app_context, get_app_artifact, and list_apps by focusing on the user-facing URL.

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?

Explicitly names both when to use it (after create_app to hand the user something to click) and its diagnostic role (before publish_app to see what is still missing), routing the agent against the two lifecycle siblings.

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