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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so by describing the payload fields (name, service, write-permission flag, explanatory skill, plus base address and owner description for custom APIs). The write-permission indicator is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not state read-only nature explicitly, but the payload description largely covers what an agent needs.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: verb and scope first, then service examples, then returned fields, then the handoff instruction. The colon-and-em-dash list is information-packed and earns its place, though the sentence is long enough to strain readability slightly.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields, and with no parameters there is nothing further to document. For a simple zero-arg read list it is essentially complete, missing only an explicit statement that it is a non-mutating read.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly offers no parameter guidance, only noting that the returned name should be reused as `app` in api_request, which is a workflow note rather than a parameter.

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 ('List the apps the owner connected on emdly by API key') and enumerates the concrete services covered (Jira, Trello, Airtable, etc.). It also names the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields and how it differs from api_request.

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 routes the agent onward: 'Pass the name as `app` to api_request', establishing this as the discovery step before a request. It gives no explicit when-not or exclusion conditions, but the workflow context is unambiguous.

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