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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing what the result contains (app identity, enabled status, contributed tools) — valuable given there is no output schema — though it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how many apps may appear.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the use signal, with every clause carrying information (app identity, enabled state, contributed tools). No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what is returned well enough to call the tool correctly. It stops short of mentioning ordering or result size, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single optional workspace parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes workspace scoping via 'on this workspace' and adds no format or defaulting 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 (list the apps built into AvianSuite) and enumerates exactly what the answer contains: built-in apps like Magpie bookkeeping and Martin CRM, their enabled state on the workspace, and the tools each contributes. This clearly separates it from enable_app/disable_app siblings.

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?

The opening 'Use to see...' implies the discovery use case, but it never states when not to use it or names enable_app/disable_app as the mutating alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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