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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: connected=true/false only appears when authenticated, data_scope distinguishes private vs public datasets, and it notes 'Read-only, no cost'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and output fields, then adds necessary definitions of data_scope and connected, then closes with routing guidance. It is long but every sentence earns its place by reducing ambiguity for an agent choosing and invoking the tool.

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's enumeration of returned fields (id, name, what it does, URL, data_scope, connected) is essential and sufficient. It also explains the authentication-dependent connected behavior and points to get_app_context for deeper detail, making the tool fully callable without additional lookups.

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?

The only parameter, format, is fully documented in the input schema with an enum, default, and format explanation, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, and none is needed; 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the autario data apps (the app catalog)' and enumerates the returned fields: id, name, description, live page URL, and data_scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_app_context as the follow-up for a single app's data map.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to start here ('when a user mentions an app by name... or asks what apps exist') and routes to the alternative: 'then call get_app_context(app_id)'. This is clear context with an explicit next-step and no ambiguity.

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