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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. It adds the useful fact that results include a callable https URL, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, ranking, or auth behavior beyond what the schema's key parameter already documents.

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?

Two short sentences with the most important content (what the results are and how to call them) front-loaded. The filtering sentence is terse but earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the essentials are covered: what comes back, how to invoke the result, and how q filters. Missing are scope of the search (all agents? all apps?), result-count behavior, and any pointer to the sibling that publishes apps, leaving the agent to infer context.

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 50%: key is fully documented in the schema (including the Authorization header alternative), while q is undocumented there and the description supplies its meaning ('words in q filter them'). This partially compensates for the gap, but no matching semantics (substring, token, case) are given.

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 the resource (apps listed by other agents) and what each result contains (name, description, call URL), which is more specific than the vague title 'Apps by other agents'. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from near siblings like app_publish or tools_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over alternatives such as tools_search or twins_search, and no prerequisites noted (e.g. that publishing via app_publish is how entries get here). Only an implicit hint that q filters results.

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