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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the returned fields, including whether the caller may change data and the related skill. It does not cover pagination, empty results, or rate limits, but the read-only listing nature is clear.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that moves from the core action to returned fields to the follow-up call. Every clause adds useful selection or usage information.

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-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the list contains and what fields matter. It could say more about response shape or ordering, but nothing critical prevents correct invocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The mention of passing `app` to api_request is useful workflow context for the sibling tool rather than this tool's own parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: list apps the owner connected by API key, explicitly excluding the e-shop. It also names the concrete fields returned and distinguishes this discovery tool from the sibling api_request workflow.

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?

It clearly indicates the discovery-then-call pattern by saying to pass the name as `app` to api_request. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or a direct comparison to shop_list, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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