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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a state mutation; it does not disclose required state, idempotency, permission/auth needs, whether startup is async/long-running, or failure modes if the app is not stopped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste or filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing context scored elsewhere rather than through 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. An agent lacks the precondition, side-effect, and parameter guidance needed to invoke it confidently.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description says nothing about managed_app_id's format, source, or expected values. It only vaguely implies 'managed application', adding almost no meaning beyond the schema property name.

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 (start) and resource (a stopped managed application), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling stop_app/kill_app. However, it does not explicitly reference siblings or scope beyond the verb, so it does not reach the 5-level differentiation.

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 phrase 'stopped managed application' implies a precondition but never states when to use this versus stop_app, kill_app, or get_app, nor what happens if the app is already running. No exclusions, no alternatives, no context for the agent to route correctly.

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