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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload shape and maps 'status' to the PascalCase enum shared with check_app_status, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about error behavior (e.g. unknown id), permissions, or whether the read is side-effect free.

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 action and return scope, then a routing note. The parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place as a preview of the payload; nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps in to describe the returned record and the status enum, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of covering failure modes, but the essential gaps are filled.

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 0% and there is a single required integer, managed_app_id. The description only says 'by id', which restates the parameter name without adding format, source, or lookup guidance, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 ('Get the full application record by id') and enumerates the returned sub-fields (container instances, mount points). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from check_app_status and get_app_details, so an agent can pick it apart from siblings without reading 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?

Gives a clear routing rule: use get_app_details for resource usage instead. It also implicitly separates itself from check_app_status by scoping this tool to the full record. No explicit 'when not to use', but the alternative is named with its selecting condition.

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