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

With annotations only flagging destructive/idempotent/openWorld, the description supplies the substance an agent actually needs: the app leaves the store, the public URL breaks for others, the owner retains preview access, data connections continue working, nothing is deleted, and publish_app restores it. That covers effects, ownership prerequisite, and reversibility 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 action and its scope are front-loaded, and the usage trigger is placed last where it belongs. The clause about continuing to read World Bank/FRED/connector data is a slightly verbose aside, but overall there is little waste.

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 single-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers effects, ownership constraint, reversibility, and when to call it. An agent has everything needed to invoke and explain the result correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents app_id including the ownership/not-found behavior. The description adds no format or syntax 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?

The description opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Take an app YOU own back to private') and states the outcome (leaves the app store, public URL stops working). It is unmistakably distinct from publish_app, which it names as the inverse operation.

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 gives two explicit triggering conditions: 'when a user wants an app off the store' and 'before shipping a change they do not want strangers to see.' The alternative (publish_app) is named along with the direction it moves state, so the agent can choose without inference.

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