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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description is consistent with a read-only lookup. It adds genuine behavioral context the annotations don't: this is a prerequisite step before create_draft or stage_changes, and the result includes a worked example.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the return value is stated first, the call-order rule second, the applicability list last. Slightly compressed punctuation (parenthetical example note) costs a little readability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-value explanation, which it does at a high level (fields + example). For a two-parameter read-only lookup tool this is sufficient, though it doesn't hint at response size or per-app variation.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by narrowing the 10-value app enum to the subset that actually has a write guide. The store parameter is left entirely to the schema, which does document it well.

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 states concretely what is returned: the fields an app accepts in create_draft / stage_changes, plus an example. It names the two sibling tools this supports, so the resource is distinguishable, though the leading phrase is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement.

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?

"Call this before writing to an app" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the list of draft-accepting apps implicitly excludes translate, accessibility and page_speed. The phrase "the bar apps" is fuzzy relative to the enum's five bar entries, leaving which bar apps qualify to inference.

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