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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about app behavior (e.g., overdue alerts for Headed In, no check-in for Headed Back), but it does not explain the tool's own invocation behavior or return format.

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 front-loaded with the core subject ('Our two free iPhone apps') and then details each app efficiently. While somewhat detailed, every sentence contributes relevant context about the apps and no information is redundant.

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?

Given a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the two apps to understand what content the tool likely surfaces. It could be slightly more explicit about the tool's return or action, but it is largely complete for this complexity level.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description provides no parameter information, but none is needed, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, for an empty schema).

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 names two apps and explains their features, but does not state a specific verb or what invoking the tool actually does (e.g., returns app info, links, or descriptions). It distinguishes the tools' content from marine siblings, but the tool's own operation remains implied rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like draft_float_plan or open_plan_in_app. The description is purely informational about the apps and offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection.

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