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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it states authentication is required (API key or OAuth), that there is no cost, and that the call aggregates in one round-trip what would otherwise be one get_app_context per app. It does not discuss pagination or limits for users with many apps, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the trigger condition, which is the right ordering. The long platform enumeration and the persuasive clauses ('no dataset guessing, no hallucinated numbers') cost tokens, though the platform list does help match user phrasing like 'my Instagram dashboard'.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return payload — and it does, listing platforms, connector tables with dataset_id/slug/row count/last refresh, saved artifacts, a query example, and the shared_with_you section. Combined with the auth and cost notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (format) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the enum values and defaults fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format guidance, but with one well-documented enum param the baseline is a 4 rather than something lower.

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+resource ('YOUR data-app workspace in ONE call') and enumerates the exact contents returned, so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_app_context as the thing it replaces and get_app_artifact/query_dataset as drill-downs. An agent can route to it without opening any 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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given — 'THE first call when a user references "my <app>", "my dashboard", "my report"' — plus the alternatives for narrowing (get_app_artifact for a saved view, query_dataset for rows). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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